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

    Redirect all NTP traffic to internal IP

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Off-Topic & Non-Support Discussion
    24 Posts 6 Posters 10.3k 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.
    • D
      demux
      last edited by demux

      Got it.
      I selected the LAN interface only in ntp setting and it listens on localhost, too.
      In NAT I redirected all ntp traffic to the localhost IP. That's it.

      There is one problem left that I cannot find the reason for.
      We have two ntp servers. They are used internally and externally and are running pretty fine.
      From pfsense I have a constant reach of 377 to external servers, but our internal servers make problems that we do not have from other hosts: They are very, very often unreachable for a long time. And later on they recover magically, but this may take hours.
      On the ntp servers I see that they sent answer packets but these packets do never arrive at the pfsense machine. One of them is also part of ntp pool and makes no problems. Both are havily used inside wothout problems. On the pfsense machine it looks like this:
      0_1550175077128_ntp01.jpg
      Did someone else see this before? It is seen from pfsense only.

      Thanks!

      Now it looks like this:
      0_1550175416267_ntp02.jpg

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

        Nope never seen that.. So you sniff on pfsense and see it sending query to your internal ntp, and you see the return but reach doesn't go up?

        Look at the NTP packet you get back, if its not valid for some reason ntp would not count it as a reach..

        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

        D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • D
          demux @johnpoz
          last edited by demux

          @johnpoz exactly like this.

          a few minutes later...
          0_1550177367705_ntp03.jpg
          funny, if it were not my job to correct this ;-)

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

            they it only takes like 8 good queries to reach 377, if your polling every 64s out of the gate than yeah only a few minutes.

            Maybe your ntp server looses its sync and its answers are not valid?

            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
            • D
              demux
              last edited by

              All switches, machines, devices whatever use the combination of these two local ntp servers. And in the meantime while I see these broken reach bits, the other machines/devices talk to the ntp servers without any problems. Even ntppool goes up again. I believe there is something (deep) inside pfsense.
              Until yesterday I had version 2.4.3 running, do you know what ntpd version was used with 2.4.3? Because I cannot remember having seen this before with 2.4.3 and we already use this pfsense ntp server setup for about 2 years. The only difference now is the new pfsense version and NAT, and when I disable NAT things don't get better.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • D
                demux
                last edited by demux

                In a first step I let run ntpdate for about 12h every 5 secs from pfsense to the ntp server. I recorded a tcpdump on both ends and I had not one missed ntp packet. Meanwhile ntpd had the usual problems. Really strange. In the logs of doing the ntpq -p against the pfsense machine (every 7 seconds) I saw that not only my local servers seen from pfsense do experience timeouts, the external servers also have timeouts but less often. Strange...

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

                  @demux said in Redirect all NTP traffic to internal IP:

                  I had not one missed ntp packet.

                  But what did the data say, you can't just look for a reply but what was in the reply.

                  And what do you mean by nat - there should be no nat to anything local

                  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

                  D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • D
                    demux @johnpoz
                    last edited by

                    @johnpoz I meant NAT / port forward.
                    I did not dig into the packets or assemble them. This is why I used ntpdate and ntpq -p.
                    I assume ntpdate and ntpq will tell me if there is something unusual inside the packets.
                    If ntpdate reports increasing times by 5 secs if called every 5 secs, then I assume it's ok.
                    If I see packets travelling from left to right and back and a resuling answer by ntpdate, I assume it is ok. And I had run ntpq -p against pfsense to see what the pfsense ntp server currently does.
                    So I see an uninterrupted data flow and data that makes sense to ntpdate (and to me).
                    Do you know what version of ntpd was included in version 2.4.3?

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

                      Again what would port forwarding have to do with pfsense talking to your local NTP server? There is no nat from pfsense IP to some device on one of pfsense networks.

                      No I do not... Look in the release notes.. 2.4.4p2 is current
                      ntpq 4.2.8p12@1.3728-o Wed Sep 5 02:13:06 UTC 2018 (1)

                      this version came out well after 2.4.3 so yeah it was a slightly older version.

                      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
                      • D
                        demux
                        last edited by

                        I did a packet trace. What I see is - I believe - strange:
                        11:22:12.477255 IP (tos 0xb8, ttl 64, id 11111, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 76)
                        10.200.100.pfSense.123 > 10.200.100.ntp_server.123: [udp sum ok] NTPv4, length 48
                        Client, Leap indicator: (0), Stratum 2 (secondary reference), poll 5 (32s), precision -22
                        Root Delay: 0.025558, Root dispersion: 0.500915, Reference-ID: 130.149.17.21
                        Reference Timestamp: 3759301270.497451600 (2019/02/16 11:21:10)
                        Originator Timestamp: 3759301236.436497210 (2019/02/16 11:20:36)
                        Receive Timestamp: 3759301236.437431054 (2019/02/16 11:20:36)
                        Transmit Timestamp: 3759301332.477197054 (2019/02/16 11:22:12)
                        Originator - Receive Timestamp: +0.000933844
                        Originator - Transmit Timestamp: +96.040699843
                        11:22:12.477621 IP (tos 0xb8, ttl 64, id 20383, offset 0, flags [DF], proto UDP (17), length 76)
                        10.200.100.ntp_server.123 > 10.200.100.pfSense.123: [udp sum ok] NTPv4, length 48
                        Server, Leap indicator: (0), Stratum 1 (primary reference), poll 5 (32s), precision -23
                        Root Delay: 0.000000, Root dispersion: 0.550033, Reference-ID: DCFb
                        Reference Timestamp: 3759301329.370467552 (2019/02/16 11:22:09)
                        Originator Timestamp: 3759301332.477197054 (2019/02/16 11:22:12)
                        Receive Timestamp: 3759301332.475587226 (2019/02/16 11:22:12)
                        Transmit Timestamp: 3759301332.475714633 (2019/02/16 11:22:12)
                        Originator - Receive Timestamp: -0.001609827
                        Originator - Transmit Timestamp: -0.001482420

                        As far as I understood, the first packet leaving the client should have (nearly) Originator=Receive=Transmit. The server uses sets Originator=Originator client, Receive=receive time at the server, Transmit=transmit time at the server.
                        What does the client (pfSense ntp server) do between Receive and Transmit times?
                        This is whay I see the correct and fast flow of packets; it seems to hang around in pfSense's ntp server before being sent out.
                        ???

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • 4
                          4o4rh
                          last edited by

                          Thanks fellas, i got this to work with the above info.
                          Had to forward to the interface, instead of 127.0.0.1.

                          Works if set to time.nist.gov option in windows 10, but not time.windows.com
                          Any ideas why

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

                            What do you mean doesn't work is set to time.windows? If your doing redirection shouldn't matter what the client asks for.. As long as it would resolve.

                            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

                            4 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • 4
                              4o4rh @johnpoz
                              last edited by

                              @johnpoz talking through my bottom. it synchronized. maybe i tried to quick after the gov one...anyways. all good now

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • F
                                febu
                                last edited by febu

                                My crux was that part: NAT Reflection: Disable

                                Before I had it enabled and had a auto or 2nd LAN rule that was not beneficial for NTP redirect.

                                With NAT Reflection: Disable the answer time is below 5ms, and I guess the answer is coming from pfsense.

                                tinfoilmattT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • tinfoilmattT
                                  tinfoilmatt @febu
                                  last edited by

                                  @febu This suggestion is only relevant if, under System / Advanced / Firewall & NAT, the system setting "NAT Reflection mode for port forwards" is set to anything other than "disabled" (in which case the individual "NAT reflection" setting you've referred to within a Port Forward redirect rule may override the system setting).

                                  Alternatively you might reconsider the system setting you've configured under System / Advanced / Firewall & NAT / NAT Refelction mode for port forwards.

                                  F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • F
                                    febu @tinfoilmatt
                                    last edited by

                                    @tinfoilmatt Yes I was not aware of it. Thanks for the explanation 👍

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