So it has been a week…and nothing has happened so far. The FW has been perfectly stable and there have been no unscheduled reboots except for the one that will have happened at 2am on Sunday morning. Anyway, simple question, I think we all agree that doing a packet capture would be a good thing to grab to see if there is any traffic trying to reach the Internet...is there any reason why I couldn't get my script to do that? Rather than going  "Ping, fault found, reboot" why can't I say "Ping, fault found, packet capture for 2 minutes on WAN interface, save pcap file to log dir, reboot". That way when the event occurs again I will have a capture to look at after a failure that will be allow us to (hopefully) narrow down the cause of the fault. If this is possible, can someone provide the additional lines of code that need to be inserted?

Further to the above, I'm making good progress with the basic version of pfsense 2.2 firewall syslog events - just about have all IPv4 TCP/UDP working and will start on ICMP and IPv6 after that. One thing I don't have the facility to do at home is CARP, so I would very much appreciate it if people could post me some example CARP event messages for me to make sure my patterns are matching correctly.

Except that not everything on the network is a javascript-capable web browser.

Got it working… First off I had to update zabbix server to 2.4.4, which required update to Ubuntu 14.04 (well maybe it was doable on 12.04 but I needed to upgrade anyways). After that I had to configure the agents behind to proxy to each use their respective subnet proxy, even though they're the same: server1 is 172.16.1.5/24, gateway (pfsense with zabbix proxy) is 172.16.1.254, so agent points to 172.16.1.254. server2 is 172.16.5.5/24, gateway (same pfsense) is 172.16.5.254. I tried using 172.16.1.254 as proxy since these subnets are open in between, but that didn't work. Only when I set 172.16.5.254 as proxy it worked. Which I find weird, but okay. Lastly, in zabbix web I had to setup each host with their internal LAN ip (i.e server1 172.16.1.5), not the external IP of the router as you would when not using a proxy. Strange that there are no info at all about this in the manual, or even on google. When you're a newbie at zabbix like me it's not really obvious.

This: https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Why_can%27t_I_access_forwarded_ports_on_my_WAN_IP_from_my_LAN/OPTx_networks Steve

Yeah, I guess.  I understand your approach. Clearly the hardware should be able to detect, and report that it's only working within a 1G infrastructure. However in this case I'm stuck with what hardware i've got.  I guess if it comes to it, I'll have to change the software..  Either hack a workaround into pfSense or more likely do something manually with a base operating system. Even if I was flexible on hardware, I might still have good reasons to want to run the interface at a particular speed/duplex, depending on my requirement at the time.  Auto detect is not always the right answer. …  So I still think this as should be seen as a fault  -  If pfSense is prepared to offer speed/media opt on a base network interface, then it should be smart enough to realise.. that when it is dealing with a lagg virtual if, then it should drill down to the underlying media and offer a speed/duplex combination that is common to all interfaces I'm thinking for this purpose the cable medium doesn't need to be relevant -  for example, baseT, and baseSX ; these could go together as member interfaces, so long as both are set to the same duplex and speed rating. XW

I was actually about to respond to phil.davis saying that I noticed on my patch screen it has the github URL for the patch file, like: http://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/commit/e69a0cf3a216c8647a6def4eee41ab01319ce90f.patch So if I take off the .patch, that brings me to the page that shows me which branch it's on. It's still trial and error through to see if I got the right one. I also tried browsing the repo and finding one of the files that was patched and seeing which ID it should be, but that's more difficult IMO than the method above. It would just be easier to have the branch identified on the revision but I don't do this often so as long as I have a way to verify I'm getting the right patch that helps me out a lot.

Sorry I made a typo My Lan 1 interface is 192.168.0.0/24 My Lan 2 interface is 192.168.3.0/24 The 192.168.1.0/24 range is in use on a VPN that is not related to this Unless you think it makes a difference? Thanks for the response I'm still having trouble getting this to work

I also got this "user unbound does not exist" on a 6 March snapshot as reported here: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=89925.0 I will try a later snapshot tomorrow. But this was a new snapshot build after those that had the small size.

Bad cable? Bad port(NIC or switch)? Have you tried re-plugging the network cable instead of a reboot? Have you tried swapping ports on your firewall?

Yep , figured it out first off, here's my admin interface, not that it really matters. Packets: sent=67113, rcvd=67113, error=0, lost=0 (0.0% loss) in 33556.000901 sec RTTs in ms: min/avg/max/dev: 0.119 / 0.389 / 15.909 / 0.320 Bandwidth in kbytes/sec: sent=0.120, rcvd=0.120 In order to shape download traffic correctly, I had to traffic shape LAN egress. While I allow link local traffic to PFSense on LAN, it doesn't have much bandwidth set. Pings that did not make it out my WAN kept getting set to qLink instead of qICMP because of my catch all LAN to LAN. Traffic that actually creates a state on the WAN interface properly gets the desired queue.

I'm not familiar with the Negtear switch or the Asus AP, but I think it sounds a little odd that your AP is picking up it's IP via DHCP. In most cases you should set the IP on an access point statically, at least in my experience. Have a go at assigning a permanent IP to the Asus AP and see if that has any effect.

No need to wait for that. A simple power cycle will cause it to create a new static map process. I run in to this same issue because my freebie Meraki switch doesn't allow disabling of CDP and LLDP. Lets just say it's nightmare to get it to static map to the correct MAC.

https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=89419.msg494797