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

    Netgate XG-7100 & Virual IP

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Official NetgateĀ® Hardware
    13 Posts 4 Posters 1.1k 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.
    • PPCMP
      PPCM @PPCM
      last edited by

      I notice that sometimes, when I ping 192.168.3.250, a packet can pass

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

        I cannot test with two XG-7100s because I only have immediate access to one.

        That said I have no problems with CARP VIPs on LAN:

        5406dca8-8fb8-44d8-964e-cd8bdcdcf159-image.png

        $ ping -c3 192.168.1.1
        PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.184 ms
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.289 ms
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.307 ms

        --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
        3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
        round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.184/0.260/0.307/0.054 ms
        $ ping -c3 192.168.1.2
        PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.407 ms
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.269 ms
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.329 ms

        --- 192.168.1.2 ping statistics ---
        3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
        round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.269/0.335/0.407/0.056 ms
        $ ping -c3 192.168.1.3
        PING 192.168.1.3 (192.168.1.3): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.395 ms
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.359 ms
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.364 ms

        --- 192.168.1.3 ping statistics ---
        3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
        round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.359/0.373/0.395/0.016 ms
        $ ping -c3 192.168.1.254
        PING 192.168.1.254 (192.168.1.254): 56 data bytes
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.410 ms
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.196 ms
        64 bytes from 192.168.1.254: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.199 ms

        --- 192.168.1.254 ping statistics ---
        3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
        round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.196/0.268/0.410/0.100 ms
        $ arp -an
        ? (192.168.1.1) at 0:8:a2:e:a8:63 on en0 ifscope [ethernet]
        ? (192.168.1.2) at 0:0:5e:0:1:1 on en0 ifscope [ethernet]
        ? (192.168.1.3) at 0:0:5e:0:1:2 on en0 ifscope [ethernet]
        ? (192.168.1.254) at 0:0:5e:0:1:3 on en0 ifscope [ethernet]
        ? (192.168.1.255) at ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff on en0 ifscope [ethernet]

        CARP issues like you are describing are almost always something funky at layer 2. You probably want to describe how you have it all connected.

        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
        • FrankyeF
          Frankye
          last edited by

          The Interfaces -> Switches part is not synced via CARP IIRC, could it be possible you have made a configuration error on one of the two members?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • stephenw10S
            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
            last edited by

            Curious. Since they correctly show as Master/Backup when joined you must have layer 2 connectivity between them at least. I would certainly expect to be able to ping the VIP from the secondary unless you have firewall rules specifically blocking it, or not passing it.
            If you rules on LAN allow pinging the LAN address rather than LAN net that would do it.

            Steve

            DerelictD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DerelictD
              Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate @stephenw10
              last edited by

              @stephenw10 said in Netgate XG-7100 & Virual IP:

              Curious. Since they correctly show as Master/Backup when joined you must have layer 2 connectivity between them at least. I would certainly expect to be able to ping the VIP from the secondary unless you have firewall rules specifically blocking it, or not passing it.
              If you rules on LAN allow pinging the LAN address rather than LAN net that would do it.

              Steve

              Except:

              PPCM a day ago

              I notice that sometimes, when I ping 192.168.3.250, a packet can pass

              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
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                Maybe an open icmp state from an outbound test when that happens?

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

                  Maybe - generally starting a new ping doesn't match dangling states.

                  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
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    True, it would have a different ID if pinging from pfSense.. šŸ¤”

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • PPCMP
                      PPCM
                      last edited by

                      Thanks a lot for all your help

                      It is a fresh install, no rule is added

                      About the connection, both XG-7100 are connected on a freshly reseted switch (DELL N1524P) on the LAN network of routers (Eth4 on each of them)

                      Nothing special, that's why I can't understand...

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

                        Connect LAN-to-LAN on the 7100s (Like ETH3 - ETH3)

                        Connect a workstation to another LAN port on either of the firewalls (ETH4 to ETH8).

                        Does your problem go away?

                        If so, it's the Dell switch.

                        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.