Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    ICMP pings still timing out despite ICMP traffic being reported as passed

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    72 Posts 13 Posters 27.1k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • G
      georgeman
      last edited by

      Why don't you create a LAN to any allow rule, but for any protocol? For sure that uses UDP as well

      If it ain't broke, you haven't tampered enough with it

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • J
        JacktheSmack
        last edited by

        @georgeman:

        Why don't you create a LAN to any allow rule, but for any protocol? For sure that uses UDP as well

        OK so I set the WAN and LAN rules to allow any traffic, and I am still getting 100% packet loss when I poll. Checking the firewall logs, it says every single connection is being allowed. I searched the IP addresses that matched the UOT Utility, and they all were ICMP.

        http://i.imgur.com/4ED7xv5.png

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • G
          georgeman
          last edited by

          Maybe these are packets with IP options? Set the allow rules to allow packets with IP options to pass (advanced option). BTW, I am just guessing now…

          If it ain't broke, you haven't tampered enough with it

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J
            JacktheSmack
            last edited by

            @georgeman:

            Maybe these are packets with IP options? Set the allow rules to allow packets with IP options to pass (advanced option). BTW, I am just guessing now…

            Still not working. Nothing is coming up as blocked in the system logs.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • J
              JacktheSmack
              last edited by

              I'm still having this issue. Has anyone downloaded that program and gotten the Poll function to work behind their pfsense router?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • T
                timthetortoise
                last edited by

                No problems here behind NAT with no specific outgoing ICMP rules. I know that some implementations of traceroute use UDP, so you may want to allow that through as well.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • J
                  JacktheSmack
                  last edited by

                  @timthetortoise:

                  No problems here behind NAT with no specific outgoing ICMP rules. I know that some implementations of traceroute use UDP, so you may want to allow that through as well.

                  After it finishes a Traceroute, you have to click Poll. Then it will fill out the columns to the right.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • T
                    timthetortoise
                    last edited by

                    Log from traceroute:

                    
                    pass
                    Nov 8 09:37:17	 LAN	  10.100.4.45:137	      159.153.225.30:137	UDP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:37:12	 LAN	  10.100.4.45:137	      159.153.225.5:137	UDP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:37:08	 LAN	  10.100.4.45:137	      10.242.195.225:137	UDP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:37:03	 LAN	  10.100.4.45:137	      10.105.0.1:137	UDP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:37:03	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      159.153.234.54	ICMP
                    
                    

                    Log from polling:

                    
                    pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:17	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      159.153.226.105	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:17	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      159.153.225.30	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:15	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      159.153.225.5	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:14	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      206.126.236.55	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:12	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      96.34.3.89	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:11	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      96.34.0.48	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:09	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      96.34.2.40	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:08	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      96.34.80.126	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:06	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      96.34.84.142	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:05	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      10.242.195.225	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:05	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      x.x.x.x	ICMP
                     pass
                    Nov 8 09:38:05	 LAN	  10.100.4.45	      10.105.0.1	ICMP
                    
                    

                    My suggestion would be to allow any to any from your internal IP and log the traffic. Everything that I can touch, the uo program can touch.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • J
                      JacktheSmack
                      last edited by

                      I made any to any in the WAN rules, with logging, and the only thing that showed up was ICMP packets. I already have any to any in the LAN rules. When I did a Poll, I was still getting 100% loss.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • johnpozJ
                        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                        last edited by

                        Not having any issues here with polling.

                        I have no special rules other than the default lan rules.. Nat is automatic - you really should not have to do anything for pings to work.

                        So curious - are you behind a double nat.. You hide that second hop in your trace..

                        nosuchproblem.png
                        nosuchproblem.png_thumb
                        lanrules.png
                        lanrules.png_thumb

                        An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                        If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                        Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                        SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • T
                          timthetortoise
                          last edited by

                          Second hop is very likely his public IP.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • T
                            timthetortoise
                            last edited by

                            @JacktheSmack:

                            I made any to any in the WAN rules

                            Well there's your problem. You're allowing anyone from anywhere into your WAN interface. Firewall rules apply to inbound packets. The ones from you are inbound on your LAN interface, outbound on your WAN interface. Once they've traversed your WAN interface, for all intents and purposes they're considered an established session, and you don't need any rules on your WAN interface to keep it working. Take the any to any rule off of your WAN interface, that's extremely dangerous.

                            Create a rule like this:

                            only with your IP instead of mine, and let me know what happens. Make sure that in the "protocol" section you select "any."

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • johnpozJ
                              johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                              last edited by

                              @timthetortoise:

                              Second hop is very likely his public IP.

                              It shouldn't be his ip, the gateway off the segment he is connected too sure, which with most isps prob a large segment - mine for example is a /21  So sure in a privacy concern issue you might want to hide part of that IP range.. But it only gives away a segment he is on that would for example in my case be some 2000 addresses ;)

                              An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                              If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                              Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                              SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • T
                                timthetortoise
                                last edited by

                                Yeah, meant gateway. Slow brain day. I've got a /28, so exposing my gateway would not be a great idea. Most people don't get /21s to play around with.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • J
                                  JacktheSmack
                                  last edited by

                                  @johnpoz:

                                  @timthetortoise:

                                  Second hop is very likely his public IP.

                                  It shouldn't be his ip, the gateway off the segment he is connected too sure, which with most isps prob a large segment - mine for example is a /21  So sure in a privacy concern issue you might want to hide part of that IP range.. But it only gives away a segment he is on that would for example in my case be some 2000 addresses ;)

                                  It is my WAN IP that I did block out of the picture. My pfSense router is connected to a Motorola SURFboard SB 6121 modem, which should have no routing or firewalling of any kind.

                                  I made the rule exactly as you said, and here it is under pfsense firewall logs.

                                  Edit: While the Poll was cycling through, I unplugged my computer from the pfsense router, unplugged the router from the modem, and plugged my PC directly to the modem. Immediatly I started getting responses. It's not my ISP or modem, it's pfsense. I just need to know what setting I have wrong in my router.

                                  dsdsfd.PNG
                                  dsdsfd.PNG_thumb

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • johnpozJ
                                    johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                                    last edited by

                                    "While the Poll was cycling through, I unplugged my computer from the pfsense router, unplugged the router from the modem, and plugged my PC directly to the modem."

                                    Really – normally you need to power cycle a cable modem.  I have the SB6120 and if I change the mac of the device connected to it - I have to power cycle.

                                    Power cycle your modem after you connect pfsense.

                                    Here is the thing - out of the box what your doing should work.. you should not have to do anything for pings, or traceroutes to work.

                                    As to what your blocking out - that should NOT be your wan IP.. What should be in there is the IP of your ISP router your hitting as first hop.  So in my case its 24.13.176.1 while my actual IP is 24.13.x.x in that /21 range.

                                    An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                                    If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                                    Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                                    SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • J
                                      JacktheSmack
                                      last edited by

                                      @johnpoz:

                                      "While the Poll was cycling through, I unplugged my computer from the pfsense router, unplugged the router from the modem, and plugged my PC directly to the modem."

                                      Really – normally you need to power cycle a cable modem.  I have the SB6120 and if I change the mac of the device connected to it - I have to power cycle.

                                      Power cycle your modem after you connect pfsense.

                                      Here is the thing - out of the box what your doing should work.. you should not have to do anything for pings, or traceroutes to work.

                                      As to what your blocking out - that should NOT be your wan IP.. What should be in there is the IP of your ISP router your hitting as first hop.  So in my case its 24.13.176.1 while my actual IP is 24.13.x.x in that /21 range.

                                      Oh you're right. That's a different IP address. The more I know….

                                      I am gonna power cycle everything once people aren't using the Teamspeak server.

                                      Edit: Power cycled, removed the MAC Address spoofing, but still having the issue.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • A
                                        axis-frank
                                        last edited by

                                        I too am having this issue.

                                        Have 2 WAN connections, both PPPoE on pfSense.
                                        WAN 1 has an interface address (DHCP) with 5 Static IPs configured as Virtual IP Alias.
                                        WAN 2 has a single Static IP, assigned via DHCP from the ISP.

                                        I can ping WAN 2 on it's static IP just fine, as it's the same IP as the Interface address.
                                        WAN 1 however, will only respond to a ping on it's interface address, but not on any of the IP Aliases. In the system logs, it shows this traffic as a pass entry (I specified to log it), but the machine is not getting a response.

                                        Makes no sense!!

                                        Any suggestions would be much appreciated. Please let me know if I can help by providing any more information.

                                        Thanks in advance.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • johnpozJ
                                          johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                                          last edited by

                                          Your issue is not anything like the OP, not you have described it not.

                                          The OP can not ping or traceroute to outside IPs.

                                          Your talking about pinging your wans virtual IPs - not even in the same ballpark.  Start your own thread!

                                          An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                                          If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                                          Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                                          SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • A
                                            axis-frank
                                            last edited by

                                            My apologies, you're right. I've skimmed so many articles to try and find a solution, I misread this one.

                                            Good luck OP

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.