Weird routing issue
-
sorry, there is some infos in the description fields i do not want to have on the internet and i
m new to this forum so it didnt come to my mind.yes, from the ruleset i should not be able to connect to 192.168.0.x IP adresses, but i CAN.
i can login via ssh to 192.168.1.50 for example and on the remote system, i see client`s ip 172.16.27.45 in netstat. so no nat or anything else in place.
i don`t understand how this is possible as there is no rule which would allow or policyroute this.
-
Well if wan_um gateway can get there then you could get there.
Do you have any floating rules?
What other routes do you have? When you do a traceroute to this 192.168.1.50 from your client 172.16.27.45 what do you show?
Have seen users have any any in their floating and then wonder why stuff is working even though they have a block on the interface ;)
-
no floating rules in place.
i investigated further and apparently the thing is all about "negate_networks"
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=66776.45
i can see with "pfctl -T show -t negate_networks that it contains 192.168.1.0 (and others) but not 172.18.28.0. the question is , why.
will read into it further.
thanks for help so far
-
Because 192.168.1.0/24 is defined in a VPN somewhere, most likely.
You need to bypass policy routing for the 172.18.28.0/23 subnet.
Your problem is not routing in general, it is that you are policy routing out the WAN_UM gateway, which means everything not explicitly exempted in the rules above gets shoved that way without regard to the routing table. Why are you doing that? Is WAN_UM not the default gateway?
-
yes, 192.168.1.0 is also defined in a deactivated ipsec tunnel definition - apparently that
s the reason why it exists in negate_networks, though - and thats the reason why 192.168.1.0 is (by chance) being routed the correct way and 172.18.28.0 not -
Dude as Derelict said and I stated in post 1 you need to allow rule above your rule that shoves everything down that gateway..
"If your forcing traffic out a gateway say your internet gateway before you allow traffic using the normal pfsense routing then yeah your going to have problems." -
yes, i know.
but i was more curious why 192.168.1.0 was working THOUGH (i.e. without explicit allow rule).
you should know how your firewall works and how things behave.
you should be able to explain things and do not wonder about miraculous firewall behaviour.
that kann kill your security. -
Agreed, but since you have figured that out.. Now its time to correct your rules.
-
Your problem is not routing in general, it is that you are policy routing out the WAN_UM gateway, which
means everything not explicitly exempted in the rules above gets shoved that way without regard to
the routing table. Why are you doing that? Is WAN_UM not the default gateway?WAN_UM is a gateway group, you can
t set that as a default gateway and you can only route to a gw-group via policy routing, cant you ? -
if you force a gateway, be it default or a group or whatever.. You have to allow rules above that if you want your clients to talk to other networks off pfsense that are not reachable through that gateway your forcing traffic through. Is that simple!
