Routed IPsec using if_ipsec VTI interfaces

obrienmd

Makes perfect sense to me - as soon as the daily build hits pfSense factory -devel, I'll start testing again!

jimp

OK, I think I have that nailed down. Apparently it does not get along with pf route-to directly on the interface. It works fine for LAN traffic but not traffic exiting from the firewall itself. I pushed a fix, should be in snaps soonish.

obrienmd

Cool, thanks!

Question - and this might be sacrilege - can I set my Factory boxes to download CE snapshots? I poked around repos but when it looks like just swapping the pfSense.conf one didn't really work out on a test box :)

jimp

@obrienmd said in Routed IPsec using if_ipsec VTI interfaces:

Cool, thanks!

Question - and this might be sacrilege - can I set my Factory boxes to download CE snapshots? I poked around repos but when it looks like just swapping the pfSense.conf one didn't really work out on a test box :)

Not easily, several things need adjusted and it's just not worth the hassle to downgrade like that in-place. All the changes I made today, including the fix for that route-to issue, have been synchronized to Factory so it should show up in snapshots for both CE and Factory by the morning.

obrienmd

Much appreciated.

This is going to help in a lot of places... Now I just have to get Verizon to terminate mobile private network tunnels as VTI :) Wish me luck...

obrienmd

Hrm, with the new devel builds, phase 1s are coming up (and SAs show, with no inbound traffic), and I'm seeing this in ipsec logs, I think the key lines being SADB_ACQUIRE and 'unable to acquire reqid'.

CARP is enabled on WANs of one of the sides, and I'm using the CARP IP for 'Interface' on the P1 locally and 'remote gateway' on the P1 remotely. Might this have something to do with it?

The other pair I've been testing most with is that where one side is factory, and we had some success earlier, but neither side is HA/CARP. I'll be testing again with that one today as soon as factory images come out.

Jun 8 05:18:00	charon		10[CFG] vici client 360 registered for: list-sa
Jun 8 05:18:00	charon		10[CFG] vici client 360 requests: list-sas
Jun 8 05:18:00	charon		10[CFG] vici client 360 disconnected
Jun 8 05:18:00	charon		10[KNL] received an SADB_ACQUIRE with policy id 2 but no matching policy found
Jun 8 05:18:00	charon		10[KNL] creating acquire job for policy {local_wan_ip}/32|/0 === {remote_wan_ip}/32|/0 with reqid {0}
Jun 8 05:18:00	charon		15[CFG] trap not found, unable to acquire reqid 0
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		15[KNL] <con2|2> querying policy {local_tunnel_ip}/32|/0 === {remote_tunnel_ip}/32|/0 in failed, not found
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		15[KNL] <con2|2> querying policy {remote_tunnel_ip)/32|/0 === {local_tunnel_ip}/32|/0 in failed, not found
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		15[IKE] <con2|2> sending DPD request
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		15[IKE] <con2|2> queueing IKE_DPD task
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		15[IKE] <con2|2> activating new tasks
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		15[IKE] <con2|2> activating IKE_DPD task
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		15[ENC] <con2|2> generating INFORMATIONAL request 253 [ ]
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		15[NET] <con2|2> sending packet: from {local_ip}[500] to {remote_ip}[500] (76 bytes)
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		10[NET] <con2|2> received packet: from {remote_ip)[500] to {local_ip}[500] (76 bytes)
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		10[ENC] <con2|2> parsed INFORMATIONAL response 253 [ ]
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		10[IKE] <con2|2> activating new tasks
Jun 8 05:18:03	charon		10[IKE] <con2|2> nothing to initiate

jimp

Granted I haven't tried it on an HA pair but nothing has changed in a couple days that would affect that. When was the last snapshot you had working there?

Can you show the conXXXX entry from /var/etc/ipsec/ipsec.conf for that tunnel?

obrienmd

Non-HA side:

conn con2
        fragmentation = yes
        keyexchange = ikev2
        reauth = yes
        forceencaps = no
        mobike = no

        rekey = yes
        installpolicy = no

        dpdaction = restart
        dpddelay = 10s
        dpdtimeout = 60s
        auto = start
        left = {non_ha_side_wan_ip}
        right = {ha_side_wan_ip}
        leftid = {non_ha_side_wan_ip}
        ikelifetime = 28800s
        lifetime = 3600s
        ike = aes256-sha1-modp1024!
        esp = aes256gcm128-sha256-modp2048,aes256gcm96-sha256-modp2048,aes256gcm64-sha256-modp2048!
        leftauth = psk
        rightauth = psk
        rightid = {ha_side_wan_ip}
        rightsubnet = 10.90.91.1
        leftsubnet = 10.90.91.2/30

HA side:

conn con1
        fragmentation = yes
        keyexchange = ikev2
        reauth = yes
        forceencaps = no
        mobike = no

        rekey = yes
        installpolicy = no

        dpdaction = restart
        dpddelay = 10s
        dpdtimeout = 60s
        auto = start
        left = {ha_side_wan_ip}
        right = {non_ha_side_wan_ip}
        leftid = {ha_side_wan_ip}
        ikelifetime = 28800s
        lifetime = 3600s
        ike = aes256-sha1-modp1024!
        esp = aes256gcm128-sha256-modp2048,aes256gcm96-sha256-modp2048,aes256gcm64-sha256-modp2048!
        leftauth = psk
        rightauth = psk
        rightid = {non_ha_side_wan_ip}
        rightsubnet = 10.90.91.2
        leftsubnet = 10.90.91.1/30

jimp

Those don't look quite right, there is no reqid in those blocks like there should be. Are the ipsecX interfaces actually present?

Might be due to the tunnel being IKEv2, I think all three of my test systems here have been IKEv1. I'll try to spin up a v2 set.

obrienmd

Yup, ipsec1000/2000 (depending on box) ints are there, and show proper /30s.

jimp

I did see one problem come up that I just pushed a fix for, but I didn't see that specific error you had unless I had an IKEv1/IKEv2 mismatch between the peers.

The fix I made only touches two lines, you can easily apply it manually to test: https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/d4b43c48ed1636d3fcd6e47d73ba721bd63d883a

With that I just switched both sides from IKEv1 to IKEv2 and it came right back up.

obrienmd

Yep, nailed it. Looking good with that change.

Because of your warning on frr, I'm testing with static routing right now. After everything was fixed and I disabled / re-enabled the interfaces to get traffic flowing, static routes were showing in the route table but set to hn1 rather than the ipsec interface. Editing and re-saving the static route resolved the issue.

With dynamic routing I bet I won't see that in the future, but if there's some resiliency code somewhere to reset interfaces on static routes when gateways disappear/appear, go up/down, go pending, etc... Perhaps something needs to get tweaked there.

jimp

I need to work a bit on static routes yet. I had it solved and working on reboot but somewhere in my changes this week that appears to have broken again as I am not seeing my routes in the table after it boots up. I need to investigate more and open another issue up for that.

FRR should be better next week, see my updates on https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/8449#note-2

obrienmd

Great, thanks Jim.

obrienmd

Is there a simple way to map a devel release, e.g. 2.4.4.a.20180608.1025 for Factory or 2.4.4.a.20180608.0718 for CE, against a git commit? I don't want to assume it will be build using all commits immediately prior to that (and I don't know which time zones these are based on).

jimp

@obrienmd said in Routed IPsec using if_ipsec VTI interfaces:

Is there a simple way to map a devel release, e.g. 2.4.4.a.20180608.1025 for Factory or 2.4.4.a.20180608.0718 for CE, against a git commit? I don't want to assume it will be build using all commits immediately prior to that (and I don't know which time zones these are based on).

Not without loading it up and seeing what's in /etc/version.lastcommit. Servers are using CDT.

jimp

Static routes should be OK now. I'm not quite sure how it worked before, given the changes I had to make, but it's working now.

https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/0aa52fb21a21f58035f2e2fe3b9328a9c175ffb5

I think that might be most if not all of the functional issues. There are still some anti-foot-shooting measures I need to take like preventing removing an IPsec tunnel or P2 used as a VTI interface.

obrienmd

On latest devel for factory and CE, everything functionally is looking great. Had to restart *pinger (I forget which one is used these days) for gateways to get out of pending after initial interface bring-up, but packets are all flowing, no weird state issues, very solid :)

jimp

@obrienmd said in Routed IPsec using if_ipsec VTI interfaces:

On latest devel for factory and CE, everything functionally is looking great. Had to restart *pinger (I forget which one is used these days) for gateways to get out of pending after initial interface bring-up, but packets are all flowing, no weird state issues, very solid :)

Great! I'll have to check back on the gateways, one of mine is OK and it comes right up, I had disabled gateway monitoring on the other pair because it was interfering with the packet captures I was taking when diagnosing some of the other traffic issues above.