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

    100% Packet loss on primary firewall with HA Enabled (PFSync/CARP/NAT)

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved HA/CARP/VIPs
    17 Posts 2 Posters 1.5k Views 2 Watching
    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.
    • J Offline
      jgzowski
      last edited by

      Trying to get HA working flawlessly although so far I seem to be hitting a wall with packet loss issues.
      Whenever the second firewall is connected it immediately causes the first one to hit 100% packet loss on both WAN and LAN, unplug and reconnect the Ethernet cables for the first firewall and the packet loss jumps over to the second firewall and back to 0% on the first.

      Two firewalls are connected together via Port 5 with PFSYNC set on that network
      Sync reports OK.

      Both LAN ports connect to the same switch.
      Both WAN ports are connected to an unmanaged switch which connects straight to the router.

      I'm sure i'm missing something obvious but I just can't see it now as I've been looking at it for too long.

      Virtual IP:

      192...2/32 (vhid: 3) WAN CARP WAN CARP 2
      10...251/32 (vhid: 2) LAN CARP LAN CARP
      192...3/32 (vhid: 1) WAN CARP WAN CARP

      NAT Mappings (Outbound NAT):

      Interface	Source	Source Port	Destination	Destination Port	NAT Address	NAT Port	Static Port	Description	Actions
      	WAN	any	*	109.*.*.*/32	*	192.*.*.2	*		Routed via ISP for NAT traffic on .2	  
      	WAN	any	*	93.*.*.*/32	*	192.*.*.2	*		Routed via ISP for NAT traffic on .2
      	WAN	any	*	*	*	192.*.*.3	*		WAN	  
      	LAN	any	*	*	*	10.*.*.251	*		DEFAULT LAN RULE	  
      

      CARP Status:
      Show as MASTER and Backup and full history of pfSync Nodes

      Firewall Rules (Relevant):

      WAN:

      States	Protocol	Source	Port	Destination	Port	Gateway	Queue	Schedule	Description	Actions
      	0 /84  IPv4 *	WAN net	*	WAN net	*	*	none	 		    
               BLOCK IPv4 *	*	*	*	*	*	none	 		    
      

      LAN:

      States	Protocol	Source	Port	Destination	Port	Gateway	Queue	Schedule	Description	Actions
                 IPv4+6 *	*	*	*	*	*	none	 		
      

      SYNCPORT (PFSYNC):

      	States	Protocol	Source	Port	Destination	Port	Gateway	Queue	Schedule	Description	Actions
              0 /4.94 MiB  IPv4 *	*	*	*	*	*	none	 
      

      Gateways:

      	    Name	Default	Interface	Gateway	Monitor IP	Description	Actions
      	    
      	    GW_WAN (default)	Default (IPv4)	WAN	192.*.*.1	192.*.*.1	Interface wan Gateway	   
      	    GW_LAN		LAN	10.*.*.1	10.*.*.1	Interface lan Gateway	      
      

      Static Routes:

      Network Gateway Interface Description Actions
      10..5.0/24 GW_LAN - 10...1 LAN VLAN150
      10.
      .2.0/24 GW_LAN - 10...1 LAN VLAN 120
      10..10.0/24 GW_LAN - 10...1 LAN VLAN 180
      10.
      .3.0/24 GW_LAN - 10...1 LAN VLAN 130

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DerelictD Offline
        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
        last edited by Derelict

        Why the /32s? CARP VIPs should have the same netmask as the interfaces they are on.

        https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/book/highavailability/index.html

        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

        J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DerelictD Offline
          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
          last edited by

          Why GW_LAN?

          You should probably post screenshots instead of textual approximations so we know what it is we're actually looking at.

          Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
          A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
          DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
          Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J Offline
            jgzowski @Derelict
            last edited by

            @derelict That i did not notice, flicking them all over to /24 bit.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DerelictD Offline
              Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
              last edited by Derelict

              It sounds like you have address conflicts between the primary and secondary though.

              You need to configure the two nodes with their own addresses on every interface. The CARP VIP swings between them.

              Simple example:

              WAN
              192.0.2.1/29 ISP GATEWAY
              192.0.2.2/29 CARP WAN
              192.0.2.3/29 PRIMARY WAN
              192.0.2.4/29 SECONDARY WAN

              LAN
              192.168.100.1/24 CARP LAN
              192.168.100.2/24 PRIMARY LAN
              192.168.100.3/24 SECONDARY LAN

              Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
              A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
              DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
              Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • J Offline
                jgzowski
                last edited by

                We have this setup:
                Firewall 1: WAN: 192...201/24
                Firewall 2: WAN: 192...202/24

                Reason for two CARP for WAN is due to rules on ISP end, specific traffic needs to go out via .2
                CARP WAN: 192...2/24
                CARP WAN2: 192...3/24

                ISP Gateway: 192...1/24

                I'll power up the second firewall later in the day although the change of subnet's for the CARP might be the fix.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • J Offline
                  jgzowski
                  last edited by

                  After making the tweaks to the CARP subnets I'm still left in the same situation, one switch is permanently sat with 100% packet loss, the other 0%

                  Any logs I can provide that'll help diagnose the issue?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • DerelictD Offline
                    Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                    last edited by

                    @jgzowski said in 100% Packet loss on primary firewall with HA Enabled (PFSync/CARP/NAT):

                    After making the tweaks to the CARP subnets I'm still left in the same situation, one switch is permanently sat with 100% packet loss, the other 0%

                    What do you mean one switch?

                    What exactly are you testing and how?

                    Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                    A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                    DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                    Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                    J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • J Offline
                      jgzowski @Derelict
                      last edited by

                      @derelict Sorry, i meant to say Firewall.
                      I disabled monitoring of gateway as it does seem to function as expected.

                      Issue I'm seeing now though within the logs is:
                      A communications error occurred while attempting to call XMLRPC method host_firmware_version
                      Configuration from primary isn't replicating to the secondary.

                      Followed the instructions exactly and have double checked them now many times. Only have sync settings set on the primary, firewall rules for sync port set up.

                      DerelictD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • DerelictD Offline
                        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate @jgzowski
                        last edited by

                        @jgzowski said in 100% Packet loss on primary firewall with HA Enabled (PFSync/CARP/NAT):

                        @derelict Sorry, i meant to say Firewall.
                        I disabled monitoring of gateway as it does seem to function as expected.

                        does or does not? Because it works fine.

                        Issue I'm seeing now though within the logs is:
                        A communications error occurred while attempting to call XMLRPC method host_firmware_version

                        That works fine too. Can you ping the other side that you're syncing to? Can you Diagnostics > Test Port to it on your webgui port? Is the admin password the same as is set in the sync settings?

                        Configuration from primary isn't replicating to the secondary.

                        Followed the instructions exactly and have double checked them now many times. Only have sync settings set on the primary, firewall rules for sync port set up.

                        If it was done exactly as documented it would be working. I'd check everything again.

                        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • J Offline
                          jgzowski
                          last edited by jgzowski

                          both firewalls are working, the packet loss issue seems to be there still although i disabled monitoring of it as as soon as primary drops the secondary works and vice versa.

                          Primary managed to update the configuration on the secondary after the secondary had a reboot, since reboot though it's back to doing:

                          A communications error occurred while attempting to call XMLRPC method restore_config_section: @ 2019-01-30 16:56:19
                          A communications error occurred while attempting to call XMLRPC method host_firmware_version: @ 2019-01-30 16:56:37

                          Port test from SYNCPORT:
                          Port test to host: 10.200.0.2 Port: 443 successful

                          Using HTTPS for webgui

                          Firewall logs from SYNCPORT:
                          SYNCPORT tcp 10.200.0.1:40286 -> 10.200.0.2:443 FIN_WAIT_2:FIN_WAIT_2 0 / 0 0 B / 0 B
                          SYNCPORT pfsync 10.200.0.1 -> 10.200.0.2 MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE 21.66 K / 577 23.69 MiB / 460 KiB
                          SYNCPORT tcp 10.200.0.1:40286 -> 10.200.0.2:443 FIN_WAIT_2:FIN_WAIT_2 4 / 3 216 B / 164 B

                          --- EDIT

                          It now seems to be working, have not changed anything else but it works.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • DerelictD Offline
                            Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                            last edited by

                            Do you have State killing on gateway failure enabled in System > Advanced, Miscellaneous?

                            Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                            A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                            DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                            Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • J Offline
                              jgzowski
                              last edited by

                              no, should i?

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • DerelictD Offline
                                Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                last edited by

                                No. Not unless you know you need it. It is commonly the cause of the XMLRPC sync state being killed, resulting in errors like you are seeing.

                                There has to be a reason for what you are seeing. What are the rules on the sync interfaces on both nodes?

                                Are you just using the admin user/password for this or did you create another user?

                                Are you familiar with packet capturing? Capturing HTTPS traffic on the sync interfaces might yield a clue.

                                Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                                J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • J Offline
                                  jgzowski @Derelict
                                  last edited by

                                  @derelict

                                  Rules on both firewalls for the syncport:

                                  States	Protocol	Source	Port	Destination	Port	Gateway	Queue	Schedule	Description	Actions
                                   	0 /0 B IPv4+6 *	SYNCPORT net	*	*	*	*	none	 		    
                                  

                                  I'm using the default user admin with the same password on each firewall.

                                  Recorded full packet capture, looked in Wireshark and can't see anything glaringly obvious. servers are talking to each other, passing key exchange/handshake followed by many SYN,ACK and Application Data. Communication is going both ways ending with a FIN, ACK from the primary server and an ACK from the secondary.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • J Offline
                                    jgzowski
                                    last edited by

                                    Think i've solved it. Had a NAT Outbound rule for any traffic to anywhere to use NAT Adddress CARP.
                                    Added mapping for source of the LAN and another for source of the SYNCPORT and instructed the SYNCPORT not to use NAT.

                                    Also made changes to DNS Resolver so that All interfaces resolve to the NAT CARP as DNS was set to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • DerelictD Offline
                                      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                      last edited by Derelict

                                      Why would sync interface traffic ever have to go out the WAN?

                                      Yes, outbound NAT with source any is almost never right - especially to a CARP VIP.

                                      Traffic from Localhost should NAT to the interface address

                                      Traffic from inside hosts should:

                                      1. Use the local interface CARP VIP as their default gateway
                                      2. Have outbound NAT to the WAN CARP VIP set.

                                      Traffic from the sync interface should never need internet access.

                                      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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