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

    Issue with failover gateway group over VTI tunnels

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Routing and Multi WAN
    4 Posts 2 Posters 535 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.
    • S
      sgabor
      last edited by

      Hello Everyone,

      I have this network configuration:

      At Site "A" I have a pfSense router (2.4.4-RELEASE-p3) with 2 different WAN connections and a LAN connection to a Mikrotik router. This LAN connection is used as a transfer network between the 2 routers.
      The pfSense has 3 IPSec VTI tunnels to Site "B": tunnel1 goes over WAN1, tunnel2 and tunnel3 goes over WAN2.
      All the computers, notebooks and printers are connected to the Mikrotik router.

      The goal would be to make a failover connection between site A and B over the 3 tunnels, this means: if tunnel1 goes down, then the traffic should be automatically routed over tunnel2, if tunnel2 goes down, then the traffic should be automatically routed over tunnel3. And vica-versa: if tunnel2 recovers, then he traffic should be automatically routed over tunnel2 and if tunnel1 recovers, then he traffic should be automatically routed over tunnel1.

      A simple diagram of the described network:
      situation.jpg

      At site B there are Cisco devices which handle the failover solution.
      At site A pfSense should handle the failover solution.

      So I created a Gateway group at pfSense: I set tunnel1 to Tier1, tunnel2 to Tier2 and tunnel3 to Tier3. Then I created a firewall rule under the LAN tab:
      source: 172.x.x.x destination: y.y.y.y protocol: any and set the above created gateway group.

      Until this point the configuration/solution works correctly, if the connection is initiated from Site A's LAN network toward Site B's network (y.y.y.y).
      The problem starts, when the connection is initiated from Site B's y.y.y.y network to Site A's 172.x.x.x network: the connection is not established in this case. But if I create a static route on pfSense like "destination: y.y.y.y gateway: tunnel1", then the connection is established over tunnel1.

      I think this is the problem: the above described firewall rule on the pfSense does not catch the "answer" package, which is the answer to Site B's initiated connection. I could prove this by enabling the logging on the above firewall rule: when I initiated the connection from Site A, then I found the entries in pfSense's log, but when I initiated the connection from Site B, the log didn't show any entry to that firewall rule.

      I'm not a pfSense expert, I just started to use it for some weeks.
      If you have any solution to this situation, please share with me.

      Many thanks,
      SGabor

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • jimpJ
        jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
        last edited by

        Might be because at the moment, VTI interfaces don't support the reply-to keyword in pf so the return routing has to follow the OS routing table.

        Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

        Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

        Do not Chat/PM for help!

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • S
          sgabor
          last edited by

          Hello jimp,

          Thank you for your helpful answer!

          Do you have any information, when will be this reply-to feature available on VTI interfaces?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • jimpJ
            jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
            last edited by

            It's an upstream issue in FreeBSD, so we do not know.

            Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

            Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

            Do not Chat/PM for help!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • First post
              Last post
            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.