@HLPPC said in FQ_Codel IEEE pulse match rules/code/(applet?)/ $500:

Detection has to detect devices passing through managed switches to negotiate with the pSense, or correctly detect pulses while passing through pfSense in a bridge configuration to negotiate with a different device/router...

Since auto-negotiation is not visible outside the two ends of the physical link, how would you expect this to work?

@jasonsansone I haven't tested the new pf versions yet. Will be starting my migration project in the next few weeks.

The details are fairly self explanatory I thought. Basically openssl disables certain weaker ciphers. The config file re-enables them for the wpa_supplicant session. Depending on which wpa_supplicant is in use, this is either done simply through the wpa_supplicant.conf file (example at the end of the file), or through a config file for openssl that's referenced in the command line launching wpa_supplicant.

@dreamdenizen Mac for wpa_supplicant doesn't have to be that of RG, or even RG where certs came from. What matters is the mac in wpa_supplicant.conf file match that of the wan interface mac requesting dhcp. Otherwise, you'll get eapol authentication, but never received an IP because of the mismatch.

@dennypage said in Dpinger multiple targets - aka gwmond $2,500:

I was referring to a traditional multi-wan situation in which you have two completely independent ISP connections, such as AT&T and Comcast. In this case you would want a monitoring target for WAN1 in the local region for ISP1, and a a monitoring target for WAN2 in the local region for ISP2

Ah sorry for the misunderstanding, besides the primary DIA WAN 1 connection, I also have a standard ISP connection for WAN 2.

I get what you are saying though. Thanks for the help. I'll go with Cloudflare's IP for the time being until a solution like what was originally proposed can be implemented.

@Cool_Corona In this aspect yes, that is required to make MPTCP work, in this implementation, this could be another pfsense box running this functionality if implemented. Wouldn't have to be a DC necessarily, just a place where the sum of bandwidth is greater than that of what is being aggregated, could be someones house, a VPS, a dedicated server, router, etc, so long as it can run pfsense.

@dpsguard
https://administrator.de/tutorial/freeradius-management-mit-webgui-6972997853.html

@johnpoz I agree on that, but multihoming is not why I have been supporting this tread. I would just like the subdomain/multible domain dns update to work.

I would like to use dhcp to assign ip to my servers, and subsequently update dns (I admit I have not testet lately, but I still don't think dhcp/dns update allows for more that one domain).

@viniciusferrao it's been a few years, but I followed this thread and ran into a similar issue that was ultimately due to hardware checksum offloading: https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/virtualization/virtio.html

I wrote up a more complete post on the steps I took to get it working: https://n8henrie.com/2023/03/running-nixos-and-ubuntu-vms-on-pfsense-via-bhyve/, hope it's hopeful to someone!

So just for anyone who may have missed it.... While there's no news on the ZeroTier front, Netgate have now launched a package for Tailscale (a service providing similar functionality to ZeroTier) on pfSense that is very easy to set up and works very nicely.

https://forum.netgate.com/category/89/tailscale

Thank you @viktor_g

@ethereal
I was referring to the Raspberry Pi network interface , if you chose that for running ISC-DHCP-Server.
Some might chose to get the cheaper "wireless only" Raspberry board.

/Bingo

I didn't realize how dead this forum was when I posted. I guess this isn't going to happen. I'm going to try to find another solution instead of waiting for this to be fixed.

Bump

@webdawg said in BETTER WAN GATEWAY MONITOR - JUST NEED HELP - FREE/DONATION:

I wish I could ban people from threads.

You want to ban the only dev who was willing to take up the conversation with you? Sigh.

I consider myself banned.