[SOLVED] Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

maybe the downstream switches don't support stp? Maybe they are just dumb switches?

If so, they shouldn't be used anywhere the potential for loops exists.

johnpoz

Yup completely concur.. Sure shouldn't be running multiple links from that that is for damn sure.

stephenw10

How are the on-board switches in the XG-7100s configured?

I assume that is a typo and the upstream ports are using ix0 and ix1 since ix2 is an internal port.

Yeah, are those switches stacked?

What VLANs are you using? It sounds like you just created separate layer 2 segments and that prevented the loop. But it would also disconnect the LAN from the firewalls unless those switches are layer 3.

Steve

I would think you are relying entirely on STP here to prevent loops with all the switches connected together.

postables

@stephenw10 said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

How are the on-board switches in the XG-7100s configured?

I assume that is a typo and the upstream ports are using ix0 and ix1 since ix2 is an internal port.

Yeah, are those switches stacked?

What VLANs are you using? It sounds like you just created separate layer 2 segments and that prevented the loop. But it would also disconnect the LAN from the firewalls unless those switches are layer 3.

Steve

I would think you are relying entirely on STP here to prevent loops with all the switches connected together.

I haven't done any special configurations to the on-board switches for the XG-7100s. No ix0+ix1 are being dedicated to pfSync usage, and I'm using the default VLAN for pfSense LANs.

I'll take another crack at configuring STP, and replacing the two switches with ones that can do STP.

@johnpoz said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

According to the spec sheet for a gs110tp it does

IEEE 802.1w Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol (RSTP)
IEEE 802.1s Multiple Spanning Trees Protocol (MSTP)

Maybe they didn't have it enabled?

But looks like they might have some downstream switches - is the drawing showing multiple connections to the upstream switches - maybe the downstream switches don't support stp? Maybe they are just dumb switches?

The carp info is going to be multicast right - so maybe there is an issue with that? Depending on the switch configs, and the downstream switches, etc.

I don't think those gs110 stack.. Stackable switches prob be a better solution I would think? Hard to tell without more details of the environment and needs and configurations, etc.

I tried setting up RSTP on thenetgear-gs-110tp-[1-3] and that didn't seem to solve the switching loop that was happening on the LAN. The only thing that solved the issue was setting the switch ports on the gs110tp's that connected to the switch ports of the XG-7100-1U's.

However as stephenw10 pointed out, I think what that did was just create different layer 2 segments.

@JKnott said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

@postables said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

Today we were able to solve the switching loop with some switch configurations

???

Do the switches not support spanning tree? If not, you have no business using them in a complex network.

The netgear-gs-110tp-[1-3], so does the delta-cisco-2960s-1. I think netgear-0[1,2] do not support it.

JKnott

@postables said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

netgear-0[1,2] do not support it.

Are there any loops with those switches?

stephenw10

Mmm, those probably are not a problem if they each only have a single connection to one of the GS110s.

From your diagram it looks like you should have switch loops between both firewalls and the GS110s. Two loops on each side.

Steve

johnpoz

Yeah looks from his drawing to me that he has 2 lines coming up from those downstream.. You only need 1 loop and the whole thing can come down.. Especially with multiple carps - be a fair amount of multicast being sent out. And lots not forget the amount of broadcast and multicast even a single windows machine can put on the network..

Loops are Very Bad! We had a customer were they would have these idiot users that use to plug the phone in twice.. You know how you can bridge say a pc off a phone.. Well they would have a phone in a conference room and some user would get the smart idea that may it needs both connections plugged in ;)

Dumb switches really shouldn't be used in a work setup, other than maybe a few extra ports on some users desk because they are doing some special project or something.

Derelict

@johnpoz said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

Dumb switches really shouldn't be used in a work setup, other than maybe a few extra ports on some users desk because they are doing some special project or something.

They still manage to create loops there.

Or they kick out the plug and the help desk phone rings.

LAYER 8

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

Dumb switches really shouldn't be used in a work setup

I have a Cisco unmanaged switch that supports spanning tree.

Derelict

Then I guess it's not a "dumb switch."

JKnott

@Derelict said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

Then I guess it's not a "dumb switch."

It's certainly not managed. There's nothing to configure on it. Spanning tree is always on.

johnpoz

And what is the make and model of this switch? spanning tree without the ability to "configure" it not all that useful.

I just looked at specs for old sd2005 model and their 110 line - I don't see any spanning tree in the spec sheets.

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

And what is the make and model of this switch? spanning tree without the ability to "configure" it not all that useful.

Geez. You made me go digging through my junk closet. Almost needed an archaeologist.

It appears I was thinking of another switch. This one is a Cisco SD216.

johnpoz

@JKnott said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

SD216.

That doesn't show any stp support per the spec sheets I can find.

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

That doesn't show any stp support per the spec sheets I can find.

As I said in my previous post, I must have been thinking of another switch.

johnpoz

oh will that makes more sense - some smart/managed switch ;)

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Unable To Reach Second pfSense Firewall On LAN:

spanning tree without the ability to "configure" it not all that useful.

Actually it is, for it's intended purpose of preventing loops. Spanning tree goes all the way back to 1985, which predates switches. Back then, bridges were used to extend coax based networks. There's not much that needs to be configured for basic spanning tree operation. Of course, with the managed switches used these days, things like priority and VLANs have to be configured, but those aren't necessary for a basic LAN.

johnpoz

We are talking modern networks ;)

So normally in a network where you would be using spanning tree - you would for sure want to be able to configure who the root bridge is, and yup priority, etc. etc..

So back to the OP network - if your going to be doing stuff where you need to leverage spanning tree to prevent loops... Then you need to make sure only smart/managed switches that support your level of spanning tree be it old school plain jane stp, or rstp or mstp or some proprietary stuff like pvst or vstp, etc. etc.. Or maybe you use SPB...

The thing is as a lan grows, quite often these sorts of design considerations are normally quite often overlooked until a problem presents itself. And hopefully the company brings in someone to help, or the staff actually knows how to do it or are fast learners ;) And just forgot about it because the lan grew organically and was never an issue, etc.

Pretty much every company have ever worked with the stp was either nonexistent or just whatever the switches default too.. And they have no idea why some switch in some odd ball closet somewhere in there ever growing lan is the root bridge ;)

JKnott

@johnpoz

I have also seen LANs where VLANs weren't properly configured. As for the root switch, that's the only one that has to be configured for priority, unless you like reading MAC addresses, to find the lowest one.

stephenw10

Let's agree correctly configured STP is a good thing and try and help the OP get things working shall we?

Steve