For reference: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/16103

@viragomann that was exactly what was needed, thank you.

@greedj Thank You!

Primary I mean running pfSense only on bare metal servers w/ 2 CPUs. No any reason to run virtualization because of highloading, even more: better to make HA cluster of pfSense (with two(2) independent online-interactive UPS - each to one of server’s power supply, and more than 2 uplinks to power provider).

@stephenw10

Stephen... thanks for jumping in..
removed and now all good.. internet available.

thanks for everyones help

@stephenw10 Then I'm just going to stick with my current setup and see if there is anything on the console the next time this happens, if happens.
Thank you for your help, much appreciated!

@Bryan81 Especially if using pfBlocker set that to something like 2 million and adjust upward if necessary.

@Bryan81 https://forum.netgate.com/user/bryan81/settings has a Notification section to disable notifications, if that's what you're looking for. There is a Mark All Read button if you click the bell.

Extremely unlikely! We don't even have 802.11ac in FreeBSD yet. 😉

@stephenw10 said in Slow Iperf3 Results:

Could have been some sort of loop then. Or maybe some asymmetry.

If it was a loop/flood you'd see it in the traffic graphs from the time. If it was going through pfSense at least.

Must have been a loop, just flooded the 1G connection and monitored on the switch and it didn't once loose connection and had to reconnect. Very strange.

If you're authenticating against Freeradius the users only need to exist there.

If you have 100s of users though I'd consider using an external radius server. The Freeradius package in pfSense is not really optimised for large numbers like that.

Doing so removes all filtering. You can have filtering as long as you have the rules to pass traffic you need.

@Bob-Dig Thanks for the reply. Subsequent error messages appear to show the SMS is being blocked as spam.
(AUP = Acceptable Use Policy, CNCT = Concurrent Connections, MXRT = Max Rate)

Final-recipient: rfc822; XXXXXXXXX@mms.att.net Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 421 att-e2xms-ibgw-6001a.ext.cloudfilter.net cmsmtp 96.102.19.37 blocked AUP#CNCT Final-recipient: rfc822; XXXXXXXXXX@txt.att.net Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 451 4.2.0 <XXXXXXX@comcast.net> server temporarily unavailable AUP#MXRT

I likely have a ton of messages in queue and will wait for them to fail out and before testing again. Just leaving this for anyone who is having similar issues. Searches found many instances of this problem with other providers.
For example.:
Anyway, thanks again for the comments.

Sounds good and thanks again for helping out!

The leak test shows the IPs of the DNS resolver in use. Since you are using Unbound directly it will show your public WAN IP address for any queries sent out of the WAN.

If you set Unbound to use only the VPN connections for outbound queries the leak test will only show the VPN provider. That might cause problems for any service that uses DNS checks, like Netflix for example.

@Gertjan Thanks for the suggestion. I definitely get more logs but still no client logs

@stevencavanagh

Forgot I had not replied to this"…..

Anyway saw nothing on packet counters or packet capture.

However, managed to solve this issue over the last few days! With the help of the forum removed the LAGG between Pfsense and the switch and ran successfully on a single cable, despite it taking everything down initially until I killed the state and it all sprung into life.

I then backed it up, opened up an editor and changed the interface to the new card, uploaded and killed the states and all worked.

@Friederich said in Scratch Setup:

would the fallback/Failover connection occure automatically tho if the CARP is setup

Yes. Clients will be able to reconnect to the same end point, the CARP VIP, automatically. They just will be disconnected at failover and have to reconnect.

If you see backup VIPs on both nodes one may have been demoted. It's far more common to both as master when there's some layer2 issue between them.

@stephenw10 Thanks. Got your PM. Will try to get one off the list. I'll have to un-zip it. I don't think KB3 will burn it correctly otherwise.

Yes, but until I used the Hamburger stack on the left.... I was expecting this to be on the right for some reason.....

Something in your network to connecting to those for DNS. It could be unbound in pfSense directly if those are the servers for some domain a client is trying to resolve. It's unlikely to be a problem.

You could check the state table to see if any internal clients are connecting to it directly.