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

    Dealing with asymmetric routes

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    28 Posts 4 Posters 8.8k 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.
    • N
      namezero111111
      last edited by

      No, I meant 192.168.16.1 is on the other interface (upper line) connecting it via another network segment to 16.2.

      visio only lets me draw one text box per object.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • johnpozJ
        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
        last edited by

        Ah that makes more sense - name of router is "default gateway"

        like this

        192.168.16.1 - router - 192.168.0.1

        You can add as many text boxes you need on a drawing

        Drawing1.jpg
        Drawing1.jpg_thumb

        An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
        If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
        Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
        SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • N
          namezero111111
          last edited by

          Yes, exactly! Apologies if the diagram was duplicitous.

          16.2 will then have more specific routes for the remote nets.

          Are those text boxes linked to the object or just "dangling" nearby?

          Either way, a diagram like that by the OP would greatly facilitate things here.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • N
            namezero111111
            last edited by

            For example, we use something like this on the small remote sites (10-20 devices)

            Do note though that especially when you bypass FW rules for traffic on the same interface, you shouldn't have multiple subnets on the same Layer 2 segment.

            Edit: Also, if you don't want anyone talking to the VPN gateways on the VPN subnet, you should block this via firewall or alternatively move the dedicated subnet past 10.0.16.x to exclude it from the /20.

            Untitled.png
            Untitled.png_thumb

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • L
              labasus
              last edited by

              Here it is… network topology (to see attached files - registration required)

              If you will have some questions just ask, I can update this scheme with more details, if smth will be missed.

              InternetPfsense.png
              InternetPfsense.png_thumb

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • N
                namezero111111
                last edited by

                From what I understand, your original issue happens between the 192.168.0.252 MPLS router and the PFSense on the VMWare when communicating from a remote net like 192.168.1.0/24 to VM Server 192.169.0.11, correct?

                Does everything work ok when communicating between, for example, 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.0.0/24 (Office LAN), and the problems only happen when the IP Alias on LAN is utilized?

                Normally, the "bypass fw for subnets on same interface" should take care of the asymmetric routing for the Office LAN; That is, you only have an asymmetric route if "VM PFSense" acts as the default gateway on the network, and the "Office LAN" member has no static route to 192.168.1.0/24 defined.

                That's why I'm asking whether the problem only occurs when using the IP Alias.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • L
                  labasus
                  last edited by

                  Exactly

                  @namezero111111:

                  From what I understand, your original issue happens between the 192.168.0.252 MPLS router and the PFSense on the VMWare when communicating from a remote net like 192.168.1.0/24 to VM Server 192.169.0.11, correct?

                  Does everything work ok when communicating between, for example, 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.0.0/24 (Office LAN), and the problems only happen when the IP Alias on LAN is utilized?

                  Normally, the "bypass fw for subnets on same interface" should take care of the asymmetric routing for the Office LAN; That is, you only have an asymmetric route if "VM PFSense" acts as the default gateway on the network, and the "Office LAN" member has no static route to 192.168.1.0/24 defined.

                  That's why I'm asking whether the problem only occurs when using the IP Alias.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • N
                    namezero111111
                    last edited by

                    Ok, if it only happens on the IP Alias, could you please post your /tmp/rules.debug file?
                    Just sanitize the pulic IPs, they don't matter here.

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