@stephenw10: I have not ever used the captive portal. However, when I get home, I will check to see, whether I had ever initiated setting it up, but not finalized the configuration. Otherwise, I will see, whether a reboot will stop it. @SteveITS: My SG-1100 is less than two years old. I doubt that there is anything wrong with the SSD.

Ah, nice. Yes I would have those set to autoselect or default unless you have a very good reason not to. Steve

I found it somehow under "Status/Monitoring" ;-)

Support for QAT in general was added in Plus 21.02 and is only in Plus. Over time as the underlying OS and drivers get updated, more cards/chips are supported. The card you have was probably not supported by the driver until 22.05. The QAT drivers in the upcoming 23.01 release support even more. Such is the nature of progress. We don't backport drivers like that to older/prior releases, and there is little reason to not be on 22.05 at this point.

What are you actually seeing? The backtraces above are different. Steve

@stephenw10. It has resumed working, attached directly to the UPS. !! Nothing was forever damaged. The way the SG-1000 was attached to its DIN rail, I had not noticed that there were two micro-usb connectors on the SG-1000 bottom. Further, I had not seen on the notice the mention that one of these ports (the one I was attempting to use, in error) is reserved for console access. Further, some cables simply do not work. After having tested, some of my cables demonstrated they worked, but only in the proper hole on the SG-1000. Thanks, Steve, for the help. My tiny SG-1000 still works with all its glory. As long as I do not need the fiber speed, I will get him to do the required work for my home.

@viragomann Sorry the pictures above where outdated, heres my updated frontend information [image: 1671662389854-screenshot_99-resized.png] [image: 1671662389441-screenshot_98-resized.png]

@michmoor said in Captive Portal bypass issue: talking to the netgate team Euh .... the solution was already on the forum. 13747 went from Not a bug, to Duplicate, to Bug again to get solved. I guess it's a question of finding the right words when writing feedback. The official patch, as always, is much nicer : why adding a line if removing something does the job And be careful : https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/13784 was added on the fly : A MAC can (23.01) be blocked the soft way, the user will see the message that his MAC is blocked. You can chose bewteen an error message, or a MAC block portal page to be uploaded. See here for info and example how to implement that. Or : new, see 13784 : totally rejected : the MAC becomes part of the pf rules that block any interaction with the captive portal interface. I guess the user would be able to get a DHCP lease sorted out, and that's it, nothing more.

@scorpoin said in Increase wap memroy: increase swap memory Re install pfSense. That's the moment you can choose partitions sizes.

Hmm, it seems like something must have changed that is now consistently triggering it. That might be something external.

@jmickens It seems I was using a container name and not a user group. Once I changed to a valid security group, it started working.

It seems to have been a DNS issue. The default settings were set to DNS Resolver after factory reset and first setup, which was probably the culprit. I turned it off and turned on the DNS forwarder instead, and now the internet works better than ever! @stephenw10 @Derelict Thanks for your help~ I still don't exactly understand how that was an issue, but it works now. Have a nice day :)

@lewis no problem - glad you got it sorted..

Yes, the firewall rules in pfSense should allow you ping between all the subnets. Or send any IPv4 traffic. The clients in those subnets have to accept traffic from other subnets though.

How is that traffic shaping queue defined? What settings have you used? It could be so restrictive that traffic put into it is failing. Try removing the queue from that rule and retest. Steve

The ISP is handing the gateway as a private IP and that's common for a PPPoE link and not normally an issue. I have that here. But, yeah, using a 192.168.x.x address is far more likely to conflict. However, exactly as I also see, that gateway does not respond to ping. You should set the monitor IP to something further upstream like 8.8.8.8 so you get real monitoring data for the link. Steve

@steveits hi thanks for the reply. I tried what you suggested but unfortunately nothing