Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Regression #14039

closed

Limiters have no effect on upload traffic passed by policy routing rules

Added by Marcos M about 1 year ago. Updated 7 months ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Kristof Provost
Category:
Traffic Shaper (Limiters)
Target version:
2.7.0
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:
23.09
Release Notes:
Default
Affected Version:
2.7.0
Affected Architecture:
All

Description

Upload traffic is not limited if the rule passing the traffic uses route-to. This last worked in pfSense+ 22.01 and pfSense CE 2.6.0. See https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/13026#note-15:

Essentially what happens is that we have two states:

all tcp 10.0.2.1:5201 <- 192.168.1.100:44607       ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED
   [2078351244 + 3221291264] wscale 6  [1276678361 + 2419064832] wscale 6
   age 00:00:03, expires in 24:00:00, 122313:60993 pkts, 183465201:3171644 bytes, rule 81
   id: a5627f6300000000 creatorid: a17f7a2e gateway: 1.0.2.1
   origif: vtnet2
all tcp 1.0.2.78:50878 (192.168.1.100:44607) -> 10.0.2.1:5201       ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED
   [1276678361 + 2419064832] wscale 6  [2078351244 + 3221291264] wscale 6
   age 00:00:03, expires in 24:00:00, 122313:60993 pkts, 183465201:3171644 bytes, rule 77
   id: a6627f6300000000 creatorid: a17f7a2e gateway: 1.0.2.1
   origif: vtnet0

The first state is created by the rule with the limiter, but because that rule also does route-to the packet is passed through pf_test() a second time, which creates the second state. That second state is created by a rule which doesn't have the limiter associated, and that means that when it matches the limiter is not applied. It's that second state that ends up matching incoming packets, so the limiter doesn't get applied there.

Files

limiter.png (108 KB) limiter.png Marco Goetze, 03/25/2023 04:53 AM
Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF