I'm not on 2.3 yet. I haven't had a chance to schedule downtime at work,
and my home box is temporarily out of service.

I certainly hope that 2.3 has fixed this.

Moshe


P. S. After getting used to the power of a *real* routing/firewall
platform, having to use a Linksys "Smart" router while I order and replace
hardware is painful!

--
Moshe Katz
-- [email protected]
-- +1(301)867-3732

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Steve Yates <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Reply via email to