Try to add;
ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.1.1
and
ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.1.1

-lsf

man. 4. jan. 2016, 21:08 skrev Sébastien La Madeleine <
[email protected]>:

> Hi Robert,
>
> I just tried the following advice and it did not improve my situation.
>
> Unless there is more to it than just changing those parameters...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sébastien La Madeleine
> B.Sc., M.Sc. Informatique
> TooLSoft.ca
> 514-827-8665
>
> On 2016-01-04 2:43 PM, Robert wrote:
> > you need to enable ip forwarding in the kernel on cento to filter or
> use both interfaces.
> > http://centoshowtos.org/network-and-security/ip_forward/
> >
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 4, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Sébastien La Madeleine <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello, I've searched high and low to elucidate this one but so far
> nothing has queued me in the right direction so I'm turning to the network
> experts herein.
> >>
> >> Let me give you a little bit of context and expose my problem.  Feel
> free to ask if more details are needed.
> >>
> >> I have 2 pfSense firewall in 2 separate locations.
> >>
> >> Both access the internet directly.  An IPSec tunnel has been created so
> that the services of both locations are accessible on both sides.
> >>
> >> I have multiple servers on both sides both Windows and Linux.
> >>
> >> Some servers have a single nic, others have 2 nics, one in the LAN and
> one on the WAN for direct service access purposes.
> >>
> >> Both ends are in separate subnets.
> >>
> >> Site A:
> >> 192.168.1.0/24
> >> pfSense 192.168.1.1
> >>
> >> Site B:
> >> 192.168.2.0/24
> >> pfSense 192.168.2.1
> >>
> >> The tunnel is up and running.  Since both sites are for the same
> project, both firewalls have a "pass all IPV4" in the IPSec rules.
> >>
> >> 192.168.1.2 (Windows server with single nic) can ping 192.168.2.2
> (Windows server with single nic) and vice-versa.
> >> 192.168.1.3 (Windows server with 2 nics) required a new route (route
> add -net 192.168.2.0/24 gw 192.168.1.1) to be able to ping 192.168.2.2
> and the ping works both ways.
> >>
> >> Here comes my problem.
> >> 192.168.1.4 is a CentOS 7 machine.  It has 2 nics, one on the LAN
> (192.168.1.4) and one on the WAN.  The default gateway for this machine is
> obviously on the WAN side.
> >>
> >> Try as much as I can, I never managed to add a route that would allow
> traffic to be routed to 192.168.2.0 through 192.168.1.1.
> >>
> >> route -n add -net 192.168.2.0/24 -m 100 gw 192.168.1.1
> >>
> >> route -n:
> >> Kernel IP routing table
> >> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> >> 0.0.0.0         167.114.xxx.xxx 0.0.0.0         UG    100 0        0
> eno1678003
> >> 167.114.xxx.xxx 0.0.0.0         255.255.255.248 U     100 0        0
> eno1678003
> >> 192.168.1.0    0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     100    0 0
> eno3355929
> >> 192.168.2.0    192.168.1.1    255.255.255.0   UG    0      0 0
> eno3355929
> >>
> >> I tried many a thing and exhausted my bag of tricks (and Google's as
> far as I am concerned)
> >>
> >> I temporarily deactivated FirewallD on the CentOS machine and nothing
> changed.
> >>
> >> Here's the output of the ping:
> >>
> >> ping 192.168.2.2
> >> PING 192.168.2.2 (192.168.2.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
> >>  From 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 192.168.1.2)
> >>  From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=1 Redirect Host64 bytes from 192.168.2.2:
> icmp_seq=1 ttl=126 time=80.9 ms
> >>  From 192.168.1.4 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
> >>  From 192.168.1.4 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
> >>  From 192.168.1.4 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
> >>  From 192.168.1.4 icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable
> >>
> >> Now seing the redirect, I tried to deactivate it, here's the result:
> >>
> >> sysctl -w net/ipv4/conf/eno3355929/accept_redirects=0
> >> sysctl -w net/ipv4/conf/eno3355929/send_redirects=0
> >>
> >> PING 192.168.2.2 (192.168.2.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
> >>  From 192.168.1.4 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
> >>  From 192.168.1.4 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
> >>  From 192.168.1.4 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
> >>  From 192.168.1.4 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
> >>
> >> ifconfig output:
> >>
> >> eno1678003: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
> >>         inet 167.114.xxx.xxx  netmask 255.255.255.248  broadcast
> 167.114.xxx.xxx
> >>         inet6 fe80::250:::xxxx  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20<link>
> >>         ether 00:50:56:xx:xx:xx  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
> >>         RX packets 4546  bytes 347948 (339.7 KiB)
> >>         RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
> >>         TX packets 498  bytes 124662 (121.7 KiB)
> >>         TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0
> >>
> >> eno3355929: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
> >>         inet 192.168.1.4  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.1.255
> >>         inet6 fe80::250:::xxx  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20<link>
> >>         ether 00:50:56:xx:xx:xx  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
> >>         RX packets 4908  bytes 392770 (383.5 KiB)
> >>         RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
> >>         TX packets 979  bytes 129316 (126.2 KiB)
> >>         TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0
> >>
> >> lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING>  mtu 65536
> >>         inet 127.0.0.1  netmask 255.0.0.0
> >>         inet6 ::1  prefixlen 128  scopeid 0x10<host>
> >>         loop  txqueuelen 0  (Local Loopback)
> >>         RX packets 136  bytes 153735 (150.1 KiB)
> >>         RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
> >>         TX packets 136  bytes 153735 (150.1 KiB)
> >>         TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0
> >>
> >>
> >> What really stumps me is that everything is fine on the Windows side of
> the servers...  That CentOS machine is the first that really won't work.
> >>
> >> I tought about moving the machine behind the pFsense, but the move has
> not been approved by the application supplier so, for now, not an option.
> >>
> >> The setup is quite simple so I'm assuming it's just a little bit of
> configuration that is missing, and my Google foo is not elevated enough to
> find it.  I hope you guys can help me figure it out...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sébastien La Madeleine
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pfSense mailing list
> >> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> >> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
> > _______________________________________________
> > pfSense mailing list
> > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
>
> _______________________________________________
> pfSense mailing list
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Reply via email to