Gateway tier priority backwards?
-
I did an experiment. I turned off all but 1 of the VPN interfaces with VPN B. That left me with
5 VPN A clients running
1 VPN B client runningThe gategroup detected the 4 VPN B clients were down and now all traffic is being routed through the sole VPN B client.
The only difference between the two VPN client configurations is that VPN B uses a TLS key where as VPN A does not.
This looks like a defect. I have 30ish clients running various activities behind this firewall. I should see a significant increase in the VPN A clients activity but I am not.
-
Post your rules.
There is not a problem with Load Balancing. It does what it does very well. See the other thread I posted. Every time I test it because someone claims it doesn't work right it works fine. Not going to do it again.
5 VPN A clients running
1 VPN B client runningI don't understand at all what you are doing there. Going to need a much better description.
If you have 5 VPN clients running to one provider they all need assigned interfaces and they all need gateways in the gateway group if you want them to be utilized in that manner.
-
I've pseudo posted my rules above. What do you want to see specifically? glad to grab screen shots of the areas you want to look at.
-
Start with a screen shot of the gateway group. If you don't have 6 gateways there you're not going to be utilizing 6 OpenVPN client instances.
-
** edit - didn't know you had requested screen shot. screen grab for gateway group : https://imgur.com/a/I4Z0f
I did another test recently 2 days ago.
-
All openvpn clients have assigned interfaces. The only change to default interface is checking disallowing bogon networks.
-
VPN A does not have a specific TLS key.
-
VPN A has 5 openvpn client sessions / interfaces
-
VPN B does have a specific TLS key
-
VPN B has 1 openvpn client session / interface
-
All 6 are defined in the gateway group.
-
Within the gateway group WAN is set to never
-
All 6 interfaces are set to tier 1
VPN A#1 1.06 MiB / 50 KiB
VPN A#2 1.27 MiB / 710 KiB
VPN A#3 1.41 MiB / 888 KiB
VPN A#4 1.65 MiB / 1.64 MiB
VPN A#5 1.27 MiB / 709 KiBVPN B#1 2.52 GiB / 4.18 GiB
- I have 30 clients behind this firewall and the above information is for 2 days of collection
- VPN A interfaces only begin taking traffic when I specifically stop the openvpn client session of VPN B
Is there something unique about load balancing and a TLS key being used with the openvpn client, gateway group or some other dependency?
-
-
As Derelic already pointed out: The Loadbalancer balances connections, not traffic.
How do you know that your clients are actually creating new connections all the time?
Those 2.52/4.18 GiB you see on VPN B#1 could be from a single connection. -
As Derelic already pointed out: The Loadbalancer balances connections, not traffic.
How do you know that your clients are actually creating new connections all the time?
Those 2.52/4.18 GiB you see on VPN B#1 could be from a single connection.I understand this, even before it was mentioned. However it is evidence it's not loading properly or something I don't understand. Do you think 30 clients over 2 days are going to only transfer kilobytes of traffic? That doesn't pass my smoke test.
***edit: i just dumped the active states on the firewall. the VPN A interfaces 1 - 5 are not in the table with exception of these entries:
VPN A 3 icmp xx.xx.xx.xx:7611 -> xx.xx.xx.xx:7611 0:00 20.866 K / 0 571 KiB / 0 B
VPN A 5 icmp xx.xx.xx.xx:8466 -> xx.xx.xx.xx:8466 0:00 20.867 K / 0 571 KiB / 0 B
VPN A 4 tcp xx.xx.xx.xx:63300 (xx.xx.xx.xx:63032) -> xx.xx.xx.xx:443 ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED 5.449 K / 5.46 K 231 KiB / 762 KiB
VPN A 1 icmp xx.xx.xx.xx:7229 -> xx.xx.xx.xx:7229 0:00 20.866 K / 0 571 KiB / 0 B
VPN A 2 icmp xx.xx.xx.xx:7271 -> xx.xx.xx.xx:7271 0:00 20.865 K / 0 571 KiB / 0 B
VPN A 4 icmp xx.xx.xx.xx:8068 -> xx.xx.xx.xx:8068 0:00 20.866 K / 0 571 KiB / 0 B -
That is just one connection. Not a connection from 30 clients.
That is the amount of traffic that has been transmitted over THAT connection since its creation.
Every TCP connection gets its own state.
Load balancing works fine, though it often doesn't match users' misunderstandings about how it should be behaving. See the other thread.
-
my state table had roughly 500+ states. What you see above is exactly what was in that 500+ states. What specifically should i take from the link you suggested?
I'm going to build up a load gen and slam my firewall with thousands of states and put a serious load on it and will come back to this thread with the results. Maybe it's just a matter of small load on my firewall.
-
That's exactly what those graphs represent. Trex generating approximately 350K states though 4- and 8- interface load balance configurations.
Works fine.
