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

    Problem with OpenVPN clients and routing?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.4 Development Snapshots
    26 Posts 5 Posters 3.9k 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.
    • jimpJ
      jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
      last edited by

      Since you had to take that step of manually using pkg, to be absolutely certain it's not related to a mismatch of some kind, you should reinstall. Thankfully it's super quick to get back to your current setup on 2.4.

      1. Backup your config for safety
      2. Download and write out a fresh 2.4 snapshot install image
      3. Boot the image and choose "Recover config.xml" and then pick your existing installation drive (it will read in your current config and copy it back post-install)
      4. Continue through the install and then reboot

      It will boot back up with your current configuration, reinstall packages if it needs to, and then you'll be up and running.

      If you still have a problem, then start by going to the OpenVPN logs (Status > System Logs, OpenVPN tab) and copy/paste the log here. You can obfuscate your public IP addresses if needed.

      Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

      Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

      Do not Chat/PM for help!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cosmoxl
        last edited by

        OK, I did the reinstall.  Everything came up just right.  Very nice.

        The state of the system prior to reinstall was that 1 OpenVPN client was running and gateway monitoring was working.

        Reboot after reinstall and that continued to work.

        However, as soon as I start up a second OpenVPN client, the ability to ping the 1st stopped.  Gateway monitoring is now working fine on the 2nd OVPN client.

        From the shell I see this regarding OVPN client 1:

        ovpnc1: flags=8051 <up,pointopoint,running,multicast>metric 0 mtu 20000
                options=80000 <linkstate>inet6 fe80::dacb:8aff:fe70:1374%ovpnc1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x7
                inet 10.30.0.2 --> 10.30.0.1  netmask 0xffff0000
                nd6 options=21 <performnud,auto_linklocal>groups: tun openvpn
                Opened by PID 23894</performnud,auto_linklocal></linkstate></up,pointopoint,running,multicast>
        

        and if I try to ping 10.30.0.1, which I have manually set as the IP to monitor for gateway monitoring, I get:

        ping 10.30.0.1
        PING 10.30.0.1 (10.30.0.1): 56 data bytes
        36 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): Time to live exceeded
        Vr HL TOS  Len   ID Flg  off TTL Pro  cks      Src      Dst
         4  5  00 0054 e3e3   0 0000  01  01 0000 127.0.0.1  10.30.0.1
        
        36 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): Time to live exceeded
        Vr HL TOS  Len   ID Flg  off TTL Pro  cks      Src      Dst
         4  5  00 0054 fdbf   0 0000  01  01 0000 127.0.0.1  10.30.0.1
        
        

        Really odd that it just worked prior to starting up OVPN client 2.

        Below is ifconfig of my second OVPN client:

        ovpnc3: flags=8051 <up,pointopoint,running,multicast>metric 0 mtu 20000
                options=80000 <linkstate>inet6 fe80::dacb:8aff:fe70:1374%ovpnc3 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x8
                inet6 2001:db8:f0:b2::4 prefixlen 64
                inet 10.201.255.1 --> 10.201.0.1  netmask 0xffff0000
                nd6 options=21 <performnud,auto_linklocal>groups: tun openvpn
                Opened by PID 85118</performnud,auto_linklocal></linkstate></up,pointopoint,running,multicast> 
        
        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          cosmoxl
          last edited by

          Another thing I haven't mentioned is that traffic through OVPN gateways that can't be pinged continues to flow.  I just have to disable gateway monitoring action.  So, it's not actually causing a problem.  But, this knowledge might help somebody figure out the problem.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • C
            cosmoxl
            last edited by

            When I make changes to an OVPN client, upon reconnection this is relevant part of the log:

            Aug 15 20:49:22 	openvpn 	61193 	TUN/TAP device ovpnc1 exists previously, keep at program end
            Aug 15 20:49:22 	openvpn 	61193 	TUN/TAP device /dev/tun1 opened
            Aug 15 20:49:22 	openvpn 	61193 	do_ifconfig, tt->did_ifconfig_ipv6_setup=0
            Aug 15 20:49:22 	openvpn 	61193 	/sbin/ifconfig ovpnc1 10.30.0.13 10.30.0.1 mtu 20000 netmask 255.255.0.0 up
            Aug 15 20:49:22 	openvpn 	61193 	FreeBSD ifconfig failed: external program exited with error status: 1
            Aug 15 20:49:22 	openvpn 	61193 	Exiting due to fatal error 
            

            This was never a problem with pfsense 2.2, 2.3, and my first few days of 2.4.  It seems now routes aren't being flushed properly?  Or the usage of the route that already exists doesn't work anymore?  I don't see this problem if I'm running only 1 OVPN client.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • JeGrJ
              JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator
              last edited by

              Aug 15 20:49:22 openvpn 61193 /sbin/ifconfig ovpnc1 10.30.0.13 10.30.0.1 mtu 20000 netmask 255.255.0.0 up

              You sure that is correct? Is that happening more than once? Seems to me that the config is bonkers as an MTU of 20000 makes no sense to me?!

              Don't forget to upvote 👍 those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

              If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

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

                Yeah that mtu seems a bit high ;) and the mask as well.. /16 on a vpn interface?

                Here example from my log for bringing up a vpn interface
                /sbin/ifconfig ovpns2 10.0.200.1 10.0.200.2 mtu 1500 netmask 255.255.255.0 up

                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
                • C
                  cosmoxl
                  last edited by

                  Yes, I've set the MTU high based on some other reading I've done which indicated high MTU sped up encrypt/decrypt.  I've used that for about a year now with no problem.  Just for kicks I removed the tun-mtu 20000 directive and it does not fix the problems I'm having.

                  The 10.30.0.1 VPN is AirVPN, a quality, reputable VPN provider.  What mask they push is what they push. :)

                  Are others running 2 openvpn clients with no problem and I'm the only one?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • chpalmerC
                    chpalmer
                    last edited by

                    @cosmoxl:

                    Are others running 2 openvpn clients with no problem and I'm the only one?

                    Im running 6 servers here right now..  I have one machine with one server and one client.

                    All my tunnels are 10.10.1.x/30

                    Triggering snowflakes one by one..
                    Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box.

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

                      "I've done which indicated high MTU sped up encrypt/decrypt"

                      What??  Where did you read such a thing?

                      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
                      • C
                        cosmoxl
                        last edited by

                        @johnpoz:

                        "I've done which indicated high MTU sped up encrypt/decrypt"

                        What??  Where did you read such a thing?

                        Some time ago I came across an article on some testing done on high throughput openvpn.  I think this may have been it.  https://community.openvpn.net/openvpn/wiki/Gigabit_Networks_Linux

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

                          "For a LAN-based setup this can work, but when handling various types of remote users (road warriors, cable modem users, etc) this is not always a possibility. "

                          So this is a LAN based setup?

                          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
                          • C
                            cosmoxl
                            last edited by

                            @johnpoz:

                            "For a LAN-based setup this can work, but when handling various types of remote users (road warriors, cable modem users, etc) this is not always a possibility. "

                            So this is a LAN based setup?

                            no, but in the testing I've done I have seen some small improvement in performance with that setting.

                            Anyway, this is getting off topic.  As I've tried to reiterate, this setting I've used for quite some time.  It doesn't cause the problem nor does its removal fix the problem.

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

                              src 127.0.0.1 doesn't seem right..  Shouldn't the source be the be Your IP on this side of the tunnel..

                              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
                              • C
                                cosmoxl
                                last edited by

                                @johnpoz:

                                src 127.0.0.1 doesn't seem right..  Shouldn't the source be the be Your IP on this side of the tunnel..

                                That is from the command line of the firewall which has a NAT rule to access all VPN tunnels.  This should simulate what gateway monitoring does, right?

                                The NAT outbound rules allow the firewall, 127.0.0.0/8, out to each VPN interface.

                                Just for testing purposes I made all those NAT rules as "this firewall" out to each interface, instead of 127.0.0.0/8

                                The same problem persists.

                                As soon as I even enable the gateway (system_gateways.php) of another openvpn client (I didn't even start the tunnel), I'm suddenly unable to ping the other side of the VPN tunnel that's already up.

                                ovpnc1: flags=8051 <up,pointopoint,running,multicast>metric 0 mtu 20000
                                        options=80000 <linkstate>inet6 fe80::dacb:8aff:fe70:1374%ovpnc1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x7
                                        inet 10.30.0.13 --> 10.30.0.1  netmask 0xffff0000
                                        nd6 options=21 <performnud,auto_linklocal>groups: tun openvpn
                                        Opened by PID 86920
                                [2.4.0-BETA][removed]/root: ping 10.30.0.1
                                PING 10.30.0.1 (10.30.0.1): 56 data bytes
                                64 bytes from 10.30.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=21.782 ms
                                64 bytes from 10.30.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=21.251 ms
                                ^C
                                --- 10.30.0.1 ping statistics ---
                                2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
                                round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 21.251/21.517/21.782/0.266 ms
                                [2.4.0-BETA][removed]/root: ping 10.30.0.1
                                PING 10.30.0.1 (10.30.0.1): 56 data bytes
                                36 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): Time to live exceeded
                                Vr HL TOS  Len   ID Flg  off TTL Pro  cks      Src      Dst
                                 4  5  00 0054 781b   0 0000  01  01 0000 127.0.0.1  10.30.0.1
                                
                                36 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): Time to live exceeded
                                Vr HL TOS  Len   ID Flg  off TTL Pro  cks      Src      Dst
                                 4  5  00 0054 631d   0 0000  01  01 0000 127.0.0.1  10.30.0.1</performnud,auto_linklocal></linkstate></up,pointopoint,running,multicast> 
                                
                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • C
                                  cosmoxl
                                  last edited by

                                  I went back to 2.3.4p1 and I have no more problems.  Also please remember I didn't have problems for several days on 2.4.  One of the 2.4 updates broke things.  I hope it can be found and fixed.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • jimpJ
                                    jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                                    last edited by

                                    You're the only person I've seen or heard of having trouble with multiple clients on 2.4 (or 2.3 for that matter).

                                    I run several OpenVPN clients on 2.4 and they all work, 24/7, for weeks/months at a time.

                                    It's something specific to your settings, either what you have configured or what is being pushed to you. It could be a conflicting or overlapping route or tunnel network, for example.

                                    Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                                    Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                                    Do not Chat/PM for help!

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • C
                                      cosmoxl
                                      last edited by

                                      @jimp:

                                      You're the only person I've seen or heard of having trouble with multiple clients on 2.4 (or 2.3 for that matter).

                                      I run several OpenVPN clients on 2.4 and they all work, 24/7, for weeks/months at a time.

                                      It's something specific to your settings, either what you have configured or what is being pushed to you. It could be a conflicting or overlapping route or tunnel network, for example.

                                      I tried to show in an earlier post that the routes don't overlap.  I don't specify remote networks in the OVPN client config either.  I do have OVPN clients set to not pull routes and to not add/remove routes.  That was how I was taught to do it and it works in pfsense 2.3.  But, maybe that doesn't work with pfsense 2.4 or openvpn 2.4?

                                      I'm not sure how it's logical for anybody to say it's on my end when I change nothing and it stops working after an update.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • jimpJ
                                        jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                                        last edited by

                                        Because nobody else can reproduce it and it affects only you, the logical conclusion is that it is something in your environment, config, etc.

                                        Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                                        Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                                        Do not Chat/PM for help!

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • C
                                          cosmoxl
                                          last edited by

                                          @jimp:

                                          Because nobody else can reproduce it and it affects only you, the logical conclusion is that it is something in your environment, config, etc.

                                          What you're implying is that my pfsense config can be magically changed, not by me, so as to cause a problem.  That wouldn't be good business for netgate or for any users of pfsense.  Nor does it make sense for software developers who usually pride themselves on logic.

                                          I understand it's difficult to see this as a problem if only 1 person is reporting it but let's try to remember the facts of the case.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • jimpJ
                                            jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                                            last edited by

                                            Until the actual cause is located, however, the burden is still on you to diagnose it because nobody else can. I'm not saying your config magically changed, but something about it is causing the unintended behavior.

                                            OpenVPN 2.4 also does a lot more dynamic negotiation, like NCP, where new settings are used in potentially unexpected ways depending on what the other side does.

                                            So it may be that the provider(s) are sending you settings that do nothing in 2.3.x but activate things in 2.4.x which could be part of your issue.

                                            There have not been any changes in OpenVPN code on pfSense in over a month, and the most recent change to OpenVPN itself was nearly two months ago (OpenVPN 2.4.3 on June 21).

                                            Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                                            Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                                            Do not Chat/PM for help!

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