Subcategories

  • Discussions and feedback related to this forum

    608 Topics
    3k Posts
    JonathanLeeJ
    Me too I like how it says Jonathan Lee 2100 haha
  • Community Hiring and For Hire postings related to jobs that require pfSense software skills

    28 Topics
    115 Posts
    w0wW
    @sef1414 Name it "run.sh", copy to pf and chmod according documentation https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/development/boot-commands.html#shell-script-option You will see messages in the system log like those quoted in the script after logger command.
  • I disable the "admin" in user name

    Locked
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    2k Views
    ?
    If you have physical access - mouse/keyboard/monitor and choose option 3. To access via SSH: Windows - Download Putty, it's self explanatory on how to use. Linux - Pretty sure most distros come with the ability, open up terminal and look at the manual for SSH. I don't know the syntax off hand.
  • MPLS - newbie

    Locked
    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    10k Views
    C
    Potential Alert for Hijack not intended Please excuse me, I have been awake working on these problems without proper rest or care. Not ideal! I figured since I jotted this much down that it would be also… Not ideal.. to discontinue posting in this timely thread. So forgive me! When I wake up I'll probably want to rewrite it anyway. SO, As the OP, lacking in my understanding and practice with such a series of changes from the usual - I am presently dealing with the same scenario and difficulties in deploying MPLS. No matter what I've tried so far, There seems to be random disconnect issues. Or other hiccups. My setup is virtually like the original post, Complicated by the fact I am not sure how to best tackle this without issues. I am used to using PFSENSE as a direct-to-wan device and controlling my filtering and such, But with this MPLS deployment we decided to get rid of some old network structure which is where all lan clients are migrating to. (Servers already in both networks, Printers to follow clients.) One big consideration: If you had 20 or 30 MPLS sites up - How would you run your MPLS/pfsense Interface? On a /16 private subnet of the entire CE range, a non-related /24 with routing, or within the CE? I do like routing but not having control over any of the endpoints is a hindrance, and its not as easy to make changes and see if there is a misconfiguration on equipment I do not control not to mention do not own or know inside and out. The existing network of IPSEC Tunnels was very stable, and I intend for this to be better. I resolved the immediate issues with migration and random disconnections (Via Telnet, RDP) by assigning second NICs native to the MPLS LAN Range for the critical services, But this defeats the effort I put into VLAN Trunking the old LAN and new networks - We rewired the building and there are literally two separate networks both at the desk and in the network rack hooked up via a router Trunk (Cisco 1841) in between MPLS and PFSENSE. It creates two completely different networks, with the MPLS and Vlan tagging to match on both the Interconnect and the MPLS Edge. I am thinking that we are struggling with what MPLS Gateway should be - PE or CE (Customer Edge and Premises Edge) - Or which one we should be routing to as a default gateway on the new optional interface. (MPLS on OPT1, PFSENSE plugged into it feeding it DHCP and allowing clients on the old network range to utilize the MPLS via NAT for the time being.) Currently I have the Customer Edge as the PFSENSE Gateway. I have traffic passing between the networks rules, and even bypass traffic on same interface, Yet still issues. Like the original post, I am stuck understanding how I am going to allow Public IP's inside to allow email or webservers to sit with the MPLS Private IP's as my "WAN" Endpoints. After reading about 15 threads relating to MPLS on these forums, seeing a variety of issues people have had with very mixed results - so here I am hoping to gain some further best practices and insight here. I want to make sure PFSENSE is setup right to allow for this as well. So ignore the rest of my DERAILING post - I am seeking clarification on the original posters issues as well as the community's experiences and woes. It comes down to simply finding out how to BEST get PFSENSE to handle the traffic. I do not want to bridge interfaces, I want to move everyone and eventually the LAN itself. I am stuck with any hosts on existing network using PFSENSE as their default gateway dropping packets to hosts connecting through the trunk/interconnect regardless of the gateways. It seems to happen between networks and what has been described as an async nat or routing: It is Intermittent about every 5 to 10 minutes or so. As soon as I use another gateway on the Lan segment, NOT PFSENSE, a LinksysCisco Router for example with the same static routes - everything is okay. I can connect to the hosts just fine - Using the Customer Premises as the default gateway. I will serve this out via DHCP if I have to but I would like to understand what I am doing wrong, and what I could be doing better in this scenario of Private MPLS. However, anything can communicate perfectly across to hosts sitting in the MPLS OPTLAN Subnet, for example, printing. Its just as soon as it hits Pfsense Interface IP on either LAN or MPLSOPT, something isn't going. For now I have added secondary gateways to the problematic hosts but this is obviously a patch solution. Before getting to modifying NAT rules (Do Not NAT for OLDNET to MPLSNET and Vice Versa) I couldn't even ping the hosts with PFSENSE as their Gateway, from the MPLS CE Router and new 10. network range. But again, anything using the old "Default gateway" on the lan, we had no issues at all communicating in the exact same round of tests. All the issues (And NAT) go away if I disable filtering. I'm curious to know if PFSENSE is stripping the MPLS traffic and somehow dropping the VLAN tags, or simply NATTING where it should just be handing traffic off and out. Perhaps the solution is not to provide a workaround but to just completely migrate the entire network. IE: Disabling NAT. I want to prepare PFSENSE, regardless, for hosting with this MPLS setup and I am concerned that QOS and other nice features are being dropped by the way I am doing things with PFSENSE. Perhaps I am missing something with the rules, or otherwise. For the record I am using a BETA SNAPSHOT. Feb 18th. 2.1-BETA1 I am using ALIASES with networks defined as Allow (I am not sure how well this works -in these scenarios- Time will tell.) I will continue to review the forums and look back here. I am a supporter and strong pfsense lover, I am SURE it can do what I want it to. Could it be that POLLING is causing my issues? There are so many variables - Literally dozens. I do not mean to hijack, (This post is WITHOUT INTENT for technical expectation for a resolution - I would obviously have to attach a couple drawings or post MUCH more detail, I am seeking to inform as well as hoping to stumble upon something someone may have come across - I have sure read a lot of like-minded issues on this.) As an afterthought, One of the members in another MPLS post mentioned he gave the Cisco Router between the MPLS and PFSENSE its own IP and subnet to resolve what sounded alot like what I'm seeing. I'm just stuck in my approach, I suppose. http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=35906.0 http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=43938.0 http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=50910.0 http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=26228.0 - Older 2010 - But a spot on thread I would like to share and ask a bit more about - So adding a gateway to an OPT turns it into a NATTED wan Like interface, but removing manual rules erases that. Ideally this is the best, if possible to provide alongside a functional way for old clients to use the new CE MPLS gateway amidst migration. and specifically: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,24405.msg126788.html#msg126788 Curious, to think about asking the provider to cut up their MPLS services as mentioned above - I didn't think they could or would do that, though it would be lovely. How else would it be done beyond 1to1 nat. Cannot visualize how it would be with an MPLS/PFSENSE setup without major headache. Hopefully some of these threads regarding MPLS are helpful for others as well. l ) Best, Me.
  • Security - SSHD rootkit in the wild (Linux, mainly RPM distros)

    Locked
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    2k Views
    No one has replied
  • Problem in squid , need help for it , using 2.7 stable iwth debian os !!

    Locked
    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    8k Views
    S
    Ask in a debian forum.
  • Intel packet of death

    Locked
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    4k Views
    stephenw10S
    I realised I do in fact have a box that uses these NICs, the XTM5. I have just spent a while throwing bad packets at it and I'm (almost) sorry to report nothing happened. Perhaps as expected. This is an interesting story though, I encourage anyone who hasn't to read the blog post. There is still some confusing as to how widespread the problem may be. At this point Intel seem to be saying that only this one system is affected (Wired are reporting its a Lex CompuTech/ Synertron Technology box) but the blog author is saying at least three different boxes are confirmed. Steve
  • Any one have a WD PCB thats working

    Locked
    2
    1 Votes
    2 Posts
    1k Views
    M
    have anyone buyed stuff from http://www.hddzone.com or anyother side that sells PCBs
  • PfSense 2.0.3

    Locked
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    6k Views
    C
    @simontkk: Hi,, I have a doubt regarding the pfsense 2.0.3 pre-release version that built by following the instruction. May I know is it normal if the Packages link that under 'System' does not included on the pre-release version ? OR maybe is my compilation error ? Packages link only appears on installed systems, not the live CD (which can't be modified to install things like packages).
  • VLan?

    Locked
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    2k Views
    P
    well, you have 2 nics, setup one as a WAN and the second as a LAN. The wan address can get 192.168.200.0/24 network from the tplink. then you setup LAN with something like 172.16.1.1/24 with dhcp running. no real need for VLAN. Pfsense might be able to handle the modem.
  • InterVlan Routing, Layer 3 switch & Pfsense

    Locked
    17
    0 Votes
    17 Posts
    26k Views
    C
    @crisnil: Id like to ask how do you relay dhcp on other vlans? my dhcp server (windows server) in on vlan2, some clients autoobtain ip automaticaly are on vlan3, vlan4, vlan5.? Services>DHCP Relay. Enable as needed.
  • UDP stream is concatenated crossing into the LAN - pfSense 1.2.2

    Locked
    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    3k Views
    P
    Well, here's the end of the story: The actual problem turned out not to be a stream truncation at all.  A different Wireshark filter showed it had to do with IP fragmentation.  The UDP packet was being fragmented and somehow the IP headers were altered and the checksums were incorrect by the time the packets hit the LAN.  A packet capture at the LAN nic didn't show any errors, but one at the corresponding switch port did, which was very difficult to figure out.  I resolved it by upgrading both the switch firmware and then pfSense (to 2.0.2).  It was after the pfSense upgrade that the packets in question finally got to the destination server application.  I'm relieved.
  • OpenVPN/tomato or IPSec/Draytek for site-to-site tunnel?

    Locked
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    5k Views
    A
    Thanks jump. I may well go for a pfSense box on an esxi server. I need an SMB server to share files and I could run pfSense on the same hardware (already do that at the other end anyway). Will update the thread when I have it working.
  • MOVED: Vídeo Conferência, MSN, SKYPE desconectando.

    Locked
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    980 Views
    No one has replied
  • Strange behavior

    Locked
    11
    0 Votes
    11 Posts
    5k Views
    A
    I took a break from this, but I still have not got this going.  If anyone has any suggestions on the issue, please let me know.  I suppose it's time to keep trying different things.  :-\
  • Homeland Security: Disable UPnP, as tens of millions at risk

    Locked
    17
    0 Votes
    17 Posts
    13k Views
    C
    @LinuxTracker: Interestingly, my IP is one that shows open. nmap seems to indicate that I (and other IPs in my /24) have 1900/2864 UDP open w/ no services. Just a misunderstanding of port scanning UDP. With UDP, either you get an ICMP unreachable, so the port is closed, or you get no response at all, which either means the port is open or it's filtered by a firewall. That's what "open|filtered" means in nmap. Not very helpful, but there is no difference in response between an open UDP port and one that a firewall is silently blocking. Tools that actually send a UPnP request and will check for responses will be able to determine whether it's open or filtered. A UDP port scan can't differentiate between those.
  • Proxy report

    Locked
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    2k Views
    N
    Don't know the exactly solution - please search the forum you will find some solutions for that. As far as I know there were problems with different perl versions und wrong symlinks and so on. Another solution could be to just run the lightparser.pl and see if it works or not. Doing a "full refresh" on the GUI and click "CTRL+F5" to reload the browser windows/logs without the browser cache
  • Syslog Analysis

    Locked
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    1k Views
    No one has replied
  • Carrier Grade NAT

    Locked
    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    3k Views
    stephenw10S
    Right now it's only an opt-in trial so I'm not too worried. Plusnet are by far the best ISP I've ever dealt with, their customer service is quite frankly astounding. So I'd be very surprised if they started forcing CG-NAT on their users. http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,110652.0.html Steve
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    1k Views
    No one has replied
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    2k Views
    No one has replied
  • Inordinate Increase in Traffic, Can't figure out what it is.

    Locked
    24
    0 Votes
    24 Posts
    10k Views
    T
    Sorry for the late followup on this. Finally resolved the issue. The DNS was open to public, closed that and after a week it all went back to normal. Thanks everyone for the input and help. Learning as I go. ~ Tom
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.