VTI gateways not adding static routes in 24.03

LarryFahnoe

@OhYeah-0 Yes, same as the messages you show.

May 19 16:02:36 pfs-m php-fpm[67932]: /system_routes_edit.php: Configuration Change: fahnoe@192.168.5.67 (Local Database): Saved static route configuration.
May 19 16:02:36 pfs-m check_reload_status[645]: Syncing firewall
May 19 16:02:36 pfs-m php-fpm[67932]: /system_routes_edit.php: Beginning configuration backup to https://acb.netgate.com/save
May 19 16:02:40 pfs-m php-fpm[594]: /system_routes.php: Gateway, NONE AVAILABLE
May 19 16:02:40 pfs-m check_reload_status[645]: Reloading filter

stephenw10

No errors? Nothing in the Routing log?

OhYeah 0

@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

No errors? Nothing in the Routing log?

Nothing else apart from the "gateway not available" one.

I booted the device back into 23.09 until a fix is found.

LarryFahnoe

@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

No errors? Nothing in the Routing log?

No. This is in part why I opened the redmine and am trying to provide information. I believe my config to be quite simple: just a pair of 4200s with an IPsec VTI between them & and static routes to the LANs on either side, so I would have expected that others would be seeing the same thing. It sounds like @OhYeah-0 has a somewhat more complex config but is seeing a similar issue. That such a simple config (as mine is) that was working properly prior to the upgrade to 24.03 spells BUG to me.

Earlier I'd asked on the support thread about enabling debugging but got crickets. I see debug is set to false in /etc/inc/globals.inc and am tempted to turn that on. Is there a better or supported way to do that via the GUI somewhere? If so, I haven't found it.

--Larry

OhYeah 0

I just remember that I installed another new Netgate 4100 for a new client and that device isn't actively being used, so I can use it for testing. It was immediately updated to 24.03 and it is showing exactly the same behavior.

I tried deleting the existing static route and re-create it, it is still not appearing in the routes table. No error messages in system logs -> routing.

My gut feeling is that the core reason of the bug is pfsense not considering 0.0.0.0/0 routing valid and thus not applying the static routes to the routes table.

LarryFahnoe

@OhYeah-0 As mentioned above, mine are using a /30 transit network rather than the 0.0.0.0/0 config you have, but we seem to be seeing the same thing: the static route doesn't load. My curious gut says: is there a timing issue where the tunnel hasn't come up yet which makes the static route seem invalid? Seems like the logs are not telling us the whole story though.

--Larry

OhYeah 0

@LarryFahnoe said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

My curious gut says: is there a timing issue where the tunnel hasn't come up yet which makes the static route seem invalid?

IPSEC P1 instances have come online in both cases without problems for me.

EDIT: I think I might've have slightly misunderstood your point. It's an interesting thought that it could be a timing issue but I don't ever recall seeing such a problem with pfsense before.

stephenw10

Yeah it seems likely it fails to add the route because the gateway is not yet available. If you have a dynamic gateway like that it won't show as up until the link is established.

However I would expect it to then be able to add routes after the VTI and hence the gateway is up.

Using 0.0.0.0/0 means there is not a dynamic gateway so that could be a problem. I'm not sure why that would be any different in 23.09 though.

But I'm surprised the route command doesn't throw an error.

Can you manually add a route at the CLI?

OhYeah 0

@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

Using 0.0.0.0/0 means there is not a dynamic gateway so that could be a problem.

BTW, just to clarify: using 0.0.0.0/0 routing, the gateway IP always showed as "dynamic" in previous versions (in GUI under System -> Routing -> Gateways). In the dashboard it shows as "n/a" as before.

stephenw10

Yeah so to add a static route there it would need to be via the interface directly. I'd have to dig into the syntax to test that.

Do you know how that static route appeared in the routing table in 23.09?

LarryFahnoe

@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

Can you manually add a route at the CLI?

Yes, but the question is when. With the system up and tunnel functioning I can add another route (to a bogus network for test):

# route add -net 192.168.15.0/24 192.168.8.2
add net 192.168.15.0: gateway 192.168.8.2

I can reboot later this morning but the tunnel comes up immediately, so it will likely not throw any error by the time I log in to add the route via the CLI. Again, one one system, rc.newwanip triggers the route to be added about 15 min after reboot.

Any insight to offer on my question about enabling debugging?

--Larry

stephenw10

Setting that would not give you any additional debug info AFAIK.

Hmm, yet resaving the static route does not create the route which should run that exact same command....

OhYeah 0

@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

Do you know how that static route appeared in the routing table in 23.09?

DESTINATION - GATEWAY - FLAGS - USES - MTU - INTERFACE

10.10.24.0/24 link#13 US 7 1400 ipsec2

192.168.24.0/24 link#13 US 7 1400 ipsec2

192.168.131.0/24 link#13 US 7 1400 ipsec2

(From GUI: Diagnostics -> Routes)

stephenw10

Right so via the link directly.

LarryFahnoe

@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

Hmm, yet resaving the static route does not create the route which should run that exact same command

Okay, so I just rebooted and then ssh'd in. The static route to 192.168.3.0/24 is missing, added it without issue. Lightly edited output removing the references to external addresses.

# netstat -rn4
Routing tables

Internet:
Destination        Gateway            Flags     Netif Expire
127.0.0.1          link#6             UH          lo0
192.168.0.2        link#6             UH          lo0
192.168.5.0/24     link#3             U          igc2
192.168.5.1        link#6             UHS         lo0
192.168.8.1        link#6             UHS         lo0
192.168.8.2        link#9             UH       ipsec1
192.168.10.1       link#6             UH          lo0
# 
# route add -net 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.8.2
add net 192.168.3.0: gateway 192.168.8.2
# 
# netstat -rn4
Routing tables

Internet:
Destination        Gateway            Flags     Netif Expire
127.0.0.1          link#6             UH          lo0
192.168.0.2        link#6             UH          lo0
192.168.3.0/24     192.168.8.2        UGS      ipsec1
192.168.5.0/24     link#3             U          igc2
192.168.5.1        link#6             UHS         lo0
192.168.8.1        link#6             UHS         lo0
192.168.8.2        link#9             UH       ipsec1
192.168.10.1       link#6             UH          lo0

From my position, the commonality here is that @OhYeah-0 and I both have systems with static routes not getting loaded. Beyond that there are variations on the theme:

One of my systems does not get the static route on boot, but rc.newwanip triggers the route to be loaded about 15 min after boot
Another of my systems now does get the static route loaded on boot, but this was a result of the steps Lev suggested in the redmine. I haven't been able to get Lev's steps to work on my other system
It sounds like @OhYeah-0 has systems that do not get the static route loaded at all

--Larry

LarryFahnoe

@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

Right so via the link directly.

Hmm, so you've uncovered a new wrinkle, but I wonder if that might be due to @OhYeah-0 using the 0.0.0.0/0?

I have yet to roll back to 23.09.1 and look at how the route was loaded. I would assume however that since I am using a /30 transit network, the route would be via the gateway IP I provided; not sure if an interface route would make sense if the user provides a gateway IP.

Under 24.03 I did just add the route via the link & traffic passes as expected.

# route del -net 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.8.2 
del net 192.168.3.0: gateway 192.168.8.2
# 
# route add -net 192.168.3.0/24 -interface ipsec1
add net 192.168.3.0: gateway ipsec1
# 
# netstat -rn4
Routing tables

Internet:
Destination        Gateway            Flags     Netif Expire
127.0.0.1          link#6             UH          lo0
192.168.0.2        link#6             UH          lo0
192.168.3.0/24     link#9             US       ipsec1
192.168.5.0/24     link#3             U          igc2
192.168.5.1        link#6             UHS         lo0
192.168.8.1        link#6             UHS         lo0
192.168.8.2        link#9             UH       ipsec1
192.168.10.1       link#6             UH          lo0

--Larry

stephenw10

Ok one thing to try here is editing and saving the VTI gateway in Sys > Routing > Gateways.

Do that creates an entry for it in the config which can change it's behaviour, espeically at boot.

LarryFahnoe

@stephenw10 said in VTI gateways in 24.03:

Ok one thing to try here is editing and saving the VTI gateway in Sys > Routing > Gateways.

Do that creates an entry for it in the config which can change it's behaviour, espeically at boot.

Hmm, you're shedding light here Stephen, thank you. Before making further changes I looked more carefully at the config.

First off, while I am using a /30 transit network and routing via the gateway IP address, the config suggests it probably ought to be via the link since it does not record the IP:

        <staticroutes>
                <route>
                        <network>192.168.3.0/24</network>
                        <gateway>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</gateway>
                        <descr><![CDATA[Alex LAN]]></descr>
                </route>
        </staticroutes>

Next, while I only see 2 gateways in the GUI, there are 3 defined in the config. The MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 gateway is defined twice, once as dynamic, and again with the transit net IP:

        <gateways>
                <gateway_item>
                        <interface>wan</interface>
                        <gateway>dynamic</gateway>
                        <name>WAN_DHCP</name>
                        <weight>1</weight>
                        <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol>
                        <interval>1000</interval>
                        <descr><![CDATA[Via Quantum Fiber C5500XK]]></descr>
                        <action_disable></action_disable>
                        <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states>
                </gateway_item>
                <gateway_item>
                        <interface>opt3</interface>
                        <gateway>192.168.8.2</gateway>
                        <name>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</name>
                        <weight>1</weight>
                        <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol>
                        <descr><![CDATA[Interface MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 Gateway]]></descr>
                        <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states>
                </gateway_item>
                <gateway_item>
                        <interface>opt3</interface>
                        <gateway>dynamic</gateway>
                        <name>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</name>
                        <weight>1</weight>
                        <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol>
                        <interval>1000</interval>
                        <descr><![CDATA[Interface MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 Gateway]]></descr>
                        <action_disable></action_disable>
                        <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states>
                </gateway_item>
                <defaultgw4>WAN_DHCP</defaultgw4>
                <defaultgw6></defaultgw6>
        </gateways>

I do not have enough experience with pfSense to know what is normal.

Now, to your point about editing and saving the VTI gateway.

Delete static route via MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
Edit gateway MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 (no change), save
Add static route via MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4

The gateways and staticroutes config sections remain the same. I'll reboot & expect the same 15 min delay before rc.newwanip triggers the route to be loaded.

Next test is to delete the static route AND the VTI gateway, then recreate both...

--Larry

stephenw10

Huh, that is interesting. Did you perhaps add a gateway manually as well as the dynamic gateway?

In a test instance here I only see the dynamic gateway. However static roots are added and are shown via the real gateway address:

[24.03-RELEASE][admin@5100.stevew.lan]/root: netstat -rn4
Routing tables

Internet:
Destination        Gateway            Flags     Netif Expire
default            172.21.16.1        UGS        igb0
10.52.52.1         link#8             UHS         lo0
10.52.52.2         link#19            UH       ipsec3
10.86.8.0/24       link#21            U        ovpns1
10.86.8.1          link#8             UHS         lo0
10.110.20.0/26     link#11            U       tun_wg0
10.110.20.10       link#8             UHS         lo0
127.0.0.1          link#8             UH          lo0
172.21.16.0/24     link#1             U          igb0
172.21.16.1        link#1             UHS        igb0
172.21.16.21       link#8             UHS         lo0
172.21.16.149      172.21.16.1        UGHS       igb0
172.21.16.186      172.21.16.1        UGHS       igb0
192.168.21.0/24    link#2             U          igb1
192.168.21.1       link#8             UHS         lo0
192.168.21.5       link#8             UHS         lo0
192.168.144.0/24   10.52.52.2         UGS      ipsec3
192.168.221.0/24   link#14            U         lagg0
192.168.221.1      link#8             UHS         lo0

LarryFahnoe

@stephenw10 After quite a bit more testing, I have narrowed the missing static route problem down to the non-dynamic <gateway_item> shown above. The real puzzler is that rolling back to 23.09.1 (BE right before the upgrade), I only have the two dynamic <gateway_items>. <staticroutes> are the same.

23.09.1 pre-upgrade:

        <staticroutes>
                <route>
                        <network>192.168.3.0/24</network>
                        <gateway>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</gateway>
                        <descr><![CDATA[Alex LAN]]></descr>
                </route>
        </staticroutes>

        <gateways>
                <gateway_item>
                        <interface>opt3</interface>
                        <gateway>dynamic</gateway>
                        <name>MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4</name>
                        <weight>1</weight>
                        <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol>
                        <descr><![CDATA[Interface MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 Gateway]]></descr>
                        <monitor_disable></monitor_disable>
                        <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states>
                </gateway_item>
                <gateway_item>
                        <interface>wan</interface>
                        <gateway>dynamic</gateway>
                        <name>WAN_DHCP</name>
                        <weight>1</weight>
                        <ipprotocol>inet</ipprotocol>
                        <interval>1000</interval>
                        <descr><![CDATA[Via Quantum Fiber C5500XK]]></descr>
                        <gw_down_kill_states></gw_down_kill_states>
                </gateway_item>
                <defaultgw4>WAN_DHCP</defaultgw4>
                <defaultgw6></defaultgw6>
        </gateways>

To clean up the errant <gateway_item> required tearing down and rebuilding much of the config:

Delete static route to 192.168.3.0/24 via MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
Delete MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4 interface assignment
Disable IPsec P1 and P2
Delete gateway MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
[ Gateway was grayed out (Gateway inactive, interface is missing) before attempting to delete and remains in this state after attempting to delete ]
Delete the IPsec P2
Delete the gateway MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4
[ Gateway is deleted and deleted from config.xml ]
Recreate IPsec P2
Enable IPsec P1 and P2
Add interface ipsec1
Enable interface OPT3 (skip renaming to MPLS_ALEX_VTIV4)
OPT3_VTIV4 gateway is created automatically
Add static route to 192.168.3.0/24 via OPT3_VTIV4
Add the OPT3 rules for site to site traffic and gateway monitoring
Reboot

Did this on both of my systems and they are both rebooting cleanly with the IPsec VTI coming up and passing traffic immediately.

I will add this update to the redmine, but it still does not explain where the non-dynamic <gateway_item> came from, and I'm not sure it addresses the problem that @OhYeah-0 is seeing.

--Larry