Are either of you on 2.3?
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/2.3_New_Features_and_Changes#Gateways.2FRouting
" Replaced apinger with dpinger(!). #5624
This fixes many gateway monitoring related issues..."
--
Steve Yates
ITS, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Moshe Katz
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 1:09 PM
To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [pfSense] Ambiguous gateway monitoring
I asked a very similar question to this mailing list a few years ago.
I don't know if anything has changed since then, but I was told at the time
that this is the expected behavior. If I remember correctly, whoever answered
the question said that whichever interface starts doing the monitoring first on
any particular IP will be the one that monitors that IP, while the other will
show as unknown. It doesn't matter which interface is default, only which
interface is *first to start checking*.
There is nothing that I know of which is fundamentally wrong with this
configuration. The only thing wrong with it is that the software just plain
wasn't designed for this use-case.
Anyone please feel free to correct me if this information is no longer correct.
Moshe
--
Moshe Katz
-- [email protected]
-- +1(301)867-3732
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Karl Fife <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm bringing this up in the off chance that it is a bug. I think it
> might be expected behavior but want to bounce it off a few others.
>
> I have an installation with two fiber uplinks. Each uplink has an IP
> on the ISP's single WAN subnet (e.g. one single subnet, not a pair of
> tunnels). This is a temporary configuration but in the meantime I
> observed the following.
>
> In this configuration, the gateway monitoring's default settings use a
> single gateway monitoring IP address (their DHCP default gateway).
> What I observe is that ONE of the two interfaces will have 'unknown/pending'
> gateway status. Obviously, the gateway monitoring ICMP messages for
> BOTH interfaces are routing via only ONE of the two, leaving other
> gateway's status unknown.
>
> QUESTIONS:
> 1. It's actually the NON-default interface (em2) that is being
> successfully monitored, NOT the default gateway interface (em1), so
> first of all if the monitoring service isn't clever enough to monitor
> its gateway on its own interface, shouldn't it be using the default interface?
>
> 2. While this specific configuration is temporary for us
> (fiber/link/transciever debugging), it seems that the gateway
> monitoring should in fact be clever enough to use its own in interface
> for monitoring its gateway address. Is that right? While unusual, I
> don't think there anything fundamentally wrong with this configuration, right?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Smart-alecs only:
> Yes, The 'normal' configuration both fiber links is membership in a
> LAGG interface.
> Yes, I know default gateway monitoring will begin if I change the
> monitor address for the default gateway to a different subnet IP
> address (e.g. a public dns server).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
