IPSec Issues 2.2.3 and 2.2.4
-
both would be interesting, but 2.2.2 would be OK
-
More information in there then I'm willing to post publicly, so I've PM'd it to you.
This was on 2.2.2 working the way it should.
-
There's something to this, I'm working on narrowing it down. I also grabbed your support ticket, will reply back there with an update before I wrap up for the day today.
-
Thanks Chris.
Nice to be validated. ;D I'm a newbie on these forums, but I'm not a newbie with networks.
With regards,
-
I too am experiencing issues with IPSec 2.2.3 and 2.2.4. My tunnel is fast, stays up for a couple hours and then just disconnects…. Not the same issue as what others are reporting, but I have three tunnels connecting to my IPSec 2.2.3 instance, (two far ends are 2.2.3 and one is 2.2.4) The 2.2.4 does not stay healthly for more than 4 hours.. deleting both instances at both ends are recreating brings everything back up for another 4 hours and then the tunnel dies again.
-
What kind of hardware?
What kind of tunnel?
CMB is working on my issue for a couple of weeks now but I haven't heard anything recently. I got the impression it was an upstream problem.
-
The firmware version of Intel NICs can play a significant role in these types of problems. I have had identical issues on a LAN. Take a look at that if you would.
afrojoe: I would update your 2.2.3 concentrator to 2.2.4 if you can. I am curious, are these pfSense HW or hand rolled? If hand rolled what are the NICs?
/M
-
It's one of the official pfsense units sold directly from pfsense which will not have issues like firmware incompatibility.
-
Hi rain!
The issue with Intel firmware is not necessarily incompatibility but rather the Intel developers seem to like to "play around" with different things for various customers in releases, some of this is latency on WAN links. I was one of the first WISPS in the 90s and it drove us nuts.
I have an SG-2440 that is working flawlessly. I have a ticket open regarding the issues of different clients in mobile configurations. CMB is very busy on many fronts. Being he is AWESOME, we should help every way we can to narrow down issues.
I would also not rule out an ISP related issue. Do you have the same provider on both ends? AND are all of your endpoints pfSense HW? TIA
/M
-
Not and ISP issue, same hardware on two different providers behaves the same, also on the same provider. Different hardware on the same two different providers work without issue, also on the same provider.
Quality of circuits is outstanding in all my remote locations. I'm using a hub spoke model, with a pair of Palo Alto 3000 series as the hub. Multiple spokes, all pfSense. Any pfsense running 2.2.2 has no issues (AES-256). All running 2.2.4 work fine except the pfsense official hardware firewall from the store.
I have no issues other than with this one firewall hardware. All other factors I can remove, have been removed.
CMB has I think all the details he's asked for, but I'm sure if he needs more he'll ask.
And trust that I have nothing but respect for CMB and the team at ESF. I honestly believe that pfsense is the best platform for perimeter security out there, commercial or not. The only reason I use PAN as my hub is because of executive concerns around an open source platform doing all security between all subnets, local and remote.
I'm just in an awkward position. I promised the CEO of the company that I would get him the best of the best, rather than what I usually build using spare parts, and I looked like an amateur after 2.2.2. All the technical reasons aside, he sees me handing him a black box that doesn't work as I told him it would. Meanwhile an old grinder under the desk supports 10-20 people on a regular basis and never blips.
The only reason I bought the pfsense branded hardware was because I read these forums regularly, and I see pfsense experts brag all the time about their bulletproof hardware from the pfsense store. I wanted to be one of those too because quite frankly although I have good good success with old hardware, one day I'm sure that might end (given the end user problems on these forums). :)
I'm grateful, honest!
Cheers,