<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[IPsec failover - without dyndns]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">So I came across this post https://forum.netgate.com/topic/52963/ipsec-multi-wan-failover</p>
<p dir="auto">and it seems the only way to do multi-wan fail over is using dynamic dns. I was hoping there was a different way to accomplish this.</p>
<p dir="auto">My current thought is to have my peer configure two tunnels on their end. One to each end point.<br />
Then configure two tunnels on my side, leaving the back up disabled.</p>
<p dir="auto">Then on the event of a primary wan failure. Disable the primary tunnel and enable the secondary tunnel.</p>
<p dir="auto">I have done this in the past with an old Juniper SSG5 but I never attempted to automate the process.</p>
<p dir="auto">Has anyone attempted this on pfSense?</p>
<p dir="auto">thank you!</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/139439/ipsec-failover-without-dyndns</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2026 23:09:06 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/139439.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2019 13:18:56 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPsec failover - without dyndns on Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:34:04 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">It is a pretty old post but would like to add what I did recently (not perfect but working to some level) feedback would be nice to make it perfect.<br />
What I did is mentioned below.</p>
<p dir="auto">ON LOCAL SIDE: Create a gateway group on the Pfsense i.e GW1_GW2 change priority to Tier 1 &amp; Tier 2 respectively.<br />
Assume Tier 1 GW IP is 10.10.10.10<br />
Assume Tier 2 GW IP is 20.20.20.20<br />
Local Subnet: 172.16.0.0/24</p>
<p dir="auto">Create Phase1 &amp; Assign GW1_GW2 Gateway as Interface to IPSec<br />
<em>GW1_10.10.10.10 (Primary-Alive)</em><br />
<em>GW2_20.20.20.20 (Secondary-idle)</em><br />
Add Phase 2 Local Subnet --&gt; 172.16.0.0/24 &lt;--- Remote Subnet : 192.168.0.0/24</p>
<p dir="auto">ON Remote Side: Configure Two tunnels<br />
Phase1 for 10.10.10.10  --&gt; Phase2 Local Subnet: 192.168.0.0/24 &lt;-- Remote Subnet 172.16.0.0/24 (Primary-Alive)<br />
Phase1 for 20.20.20.20  --&gt; Phase2 Local Subnet: 192.168.0.0/24 &lt;-- Remote Subnet 172.16.0.0/24 (Secondary-idle)</p>
<p dir="auto">Now the tunnel will establish using Tier1 IP as Peer IP, if the Tier1 Connection is down, it'll establish using Tier2 IP.<br />
I have tested this scenario, it works fine, it Failover to Tier 2 IP but when the Tier2 IP is also down OR the Tier1 IP is back online then it won't switch back to Tier1 IP. to force change I have to restart IPSec Service.</p>
<p dir="auto">is there any way to Force IPSec Service reload upon disconnection?</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/877666</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/877666</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[enthu19]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:34:04 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to IPsec failover - without dyndns on Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:10:54 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I would think that would work, though I have not tried automating anything like that.  I have successfully used dynamic DNS though.</p>
<p dir="auto">I've currently started learning about IPSEC VTI so I can have routed IPSEC.  From the sounds of the documentation, though, you could also have policy based routing:<br />
"Policy Routes<br />
To policy route traffic across a routed IPsec tunnel, use the assigned IPsec interface gateway in firewall rules as usual for policy routing.<br />
See also<br />
Directing Traffic with Policy Routing"</p>
<p dir="auto">See here: https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/vpn/ipsec/ipsec-routed.html<br />
(Note: I haven't tried that and can't speak to how well it may or may not work)</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/824113</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/824113</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Thale]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2019 19:10:54 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>