Xinud
July 22, 2020, 4:13pm
1
Hi
Been seeing a weird problem recently. From system (192.168.98.32) on LAN net (192.168.98.0/24) i’m PINGING a system (192.168.2.60) on my WAN net (192.168.2.0/24) but getting the following:
user@192.168.98.32 :~ $ ping 192.168.2.60
PING 192.168.2.60 (192.168.2.60) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=1.96 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=2 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=2.84 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=3 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=2.95 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=1.91 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=5 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=5.22 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=1.85 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=2.92 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=8 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=2.70 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=2.48 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=3.83 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=3.63 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=2.28 ms
Checked pfSense Firewall rules, gateways, Outbound NAT, etc but can’t seem to figure out what is causing this.
What I find interesting is the “New nexthop” is the reverse IP of the device I"m trying to ping.
Ping going to [192.168.2.60]
“New nexthop: [60.2.168.192]”
That seems extremely odd to me.
Any ideas how to diagnose?
Thx
pavlos
July 22, 2020, 4:47pm
2
what’s the routing table on 192.168.98.* network? (netstat -rn)
Xinud
July 22, 2020, 4:58pm
3
Here is ‘netstat -rn’ output from my Linux mint system on 192.168.98.0 network. Also providing PING output below:
xinud@db-hpzen-ku20:~$ netstat -rn
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
0.0.0.0 192.168.98.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 enp0s25
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 enp0s25
192.168.98.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 enp0s25
xinud@db-hpzen-ku20:~$ ping 192.168.2.60
PING 192.168.2.60 (192.168.2.60) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=7.70 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=2 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=2.73 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=3 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=3.17 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=4 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=3.80 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=5 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=2.90 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=6 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=2.42 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=7 ttl=63 time=3.54 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=8 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=2.58 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=2.34 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=2.03 ms
From 192.168.2.1 icmp_seq=11 Redirect Host(New nexthop: 60.2.168.192)
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=11 ttl=63 time=2.22 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.2.60: icmp_seq=12 ttl=63 time=2.13 ms
^C
--- 192.168.2.60 ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 12 received, +7 errors, 0% packet loss, time 11017ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.032/3.130/7.704/1.477 ms
Xinud
July 22, 2020, 5:50pm
4
Tried PINGING same device using Windows VM (on 192.168.98.0 network) and don’t encounter same problem.
Following is output “netstat -rn” and PING test from Window VM:
===========================================================================
Interface List
2...0e df 99 aa ec 7c ......Intel(R) PRO/1000 MT Network Connection
7...00 ff b0 25 4a eb ......Private Internet Access Network Adapter
1...........................Software Loopback Interface 1
===========================================================================
IPv4 Route Table
===========================================================================
Active Routes:
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.98.1 192.168.98.111 25
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 331
127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 331
127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 331
192.168.98.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.98.111 281
192.168.98.111 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.98.111 281
192.168.98.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.98.111 281
224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 331
224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.98.111 281
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 331
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.98.111 281
===========================================================================
Persistent Routes:
None
Pinging 192.168.2.60 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.2.60: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.2.60: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.2.60: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.2.60: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.2.60: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.2.60: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.2.60: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=63
Ping statistics for 192.168.2.60:
Packets: Sent = 7, Received = 7, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 3ms, Average = 2ms
pavlos
July 22, 2020, 6:48pm
5
on the mint box, what does ifconfig enp0s25 show?
Xinud
July 22, 2020, 6:50pm
6
enp0s25: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.98.32 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.98.255
inet6 fe80::952c:69e8:e079:b222 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 30:8d:99:15:b2:3d txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 39649858 bytes 50190940578 (50.1 GB)
RX errors 0 dropped 1346 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 19077571 bytes 2365576712 (2.3 GB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
device interrupt 20 memory 0xc1400000-c1420000
Xinud
July 23, 2020, 1:23pm
7
Please disregard this. I figured it out and fixed it.
Thanks!
pavlos
July 23, 2020, 3:28pm
8
out of curiosity, what was the issue?