I would probably setup VPN between the two locations so you can access it using the internal private IP. The client side can be at the dynamic site where it connect out to he fixed site.

I would also connect from home over VPN too.

Steve

@stephenw10

Hello Stephen, thank you for the feedback.

I read about the part here :

https://www.marvell.com/content/dam/marvell/en/public-collateral/transceivers/marvell-phys-transceivers-alaska-88e1543-product-brief-2012-07.pdf

I am not an electronics expert but what I read mentions only the eithernet ports, so yes, replacing it might not fix the problem completely.

My friend indicated that from the start but at this point, it might be worth the TRY if the part and labour are not too expensive.

I will keep you posted, thank you.

Jean-Pierre

Right. I see two workarounds.

Use netgraph ; this would achieve the result of stripping vlan0 from any traffic but also adds overhead. The whole goal over the last few years was to get away from netgraph (Thanks @cmcdonald ).

Use a switch between the ont and wan ports that strips vlan 0 tags. There's several out there that are known to work (https://github.com/owenthewizard/opnatt). This is the route I went.

This solution works well because the ONT is external. This won't work for those on gpon with sfp direct to firewall. Would need a similar arrangement for something in between the sfp and firewall to handle the vlan 0 stripping.

Hmm, might need a diagram here! If Proxmox is also tagging/untagging the issue could be in the config there.

Ok those settings are good. But you can see it has added automatic rules on the OPT1_TV intreface which implies there is a gateway defined on it still. There should not be a gateway on OPT1_TV.

@stephenw10
You were right, it was the ram !

I did a memetest and ended up with 4 passes but 0 errors. That was strange.

I ended buying a random stick of ram with same specs and replace it and also putting it in other ram slot. It's solid for 4 days now.

So what was shut down here, the Proxmox server? Not just the VM?

Does pfSense respond at the virtual console?

Does it show the expected IPs there?

Are you sure your traffic from LAN side clients is actually going through pfSense? Does it stop if you shut down the pfSense VM again?

Steve

Done.

em NICs are single queue. Only one CPU core can service the incoming and outgoing traffic queues. That means that on a 4 core CPU like you have it can never load all the cores.

igb NICs are multiqueue and here are attaching with 4 queues. Enough to load all the CPU cores sufficiently to prevent other services running.

You could override that by setting:

Or you could try to set a lower max interrupt rate like maybe:
hw.em.max_interrupt_rate=2000

But just swapping the WAN and LAN NIC assignments so LAN in em0 is probably easier. Unless you're not local to the box.

@Gertjan

Good point - I never actually looked at the script referenced only the post that it was provided on. 😏 but yes that is why it doesn't show as running on his 6100. It is.

Fixing the cron timing so that it does not "Blinkenlights" so many times - should make everything happy on both systems. Only need 1 Blinkenlight in the hour. 🤣

@Sergei_Shablovsky said in pfSense CE 2.7.2:

Confirm: the several times like this…

faaec2ef-3dff-4b3d-a321-c38d7a9c0060-image.png

28d95a49-8508-447b-be3f-c797ffb05706-image.png

Confirmed.

Nope those errors in the nginx log are almost certainly nothing to worry about.

Thanks

@SteveITS said in RAM disk?:

FWIW we run Suricata and RAM disks at most clients without issue.

Good to know, thanks.

@SteveITS said in RAM disk?:

OTOH the UT1 list in pfBlocker takes over 1 GB just to extract so YMMV on these things.

I don't had this 1 GB on my radar, thanks for the hint.

New topic here to investigate the issue since pfBlockerNG is not the cause.
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/189820/how-do-i-find-out-what-write-continuously-on-my-pfsense-ssd

@EricAiken said in pfsense and oracle virtualbox (guests blocked):

Virtualbox guest interfaces are bridged to to host's NIC

If you're using bridged NICs in VBox then there is no NAT happening. VMs should just get a DHCP lease from pfSense. I have that setup here and it works fine. Nothing special should be required on pfSense other than firewall rules to allow traffic out. And those would normally already be present.

Steve

Yup that^.

See: https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/services/dyndns/index.html

@Unoptanio not sure what your trying to show there? Yeah that is how it works.. If you ask dns to lookup something it will ask all the ns you have listed..

Whats your question?

I take it your doing dot forwarding since you have the fqdn listed their for cloudflare.

Keep in mind when you tell pfsense to lookup something, or it needs to lookup something itself and uses those.. Say for a check if there is an update - it isn't going to be using dot.. Only unbound would use dot when it get asks to lookup something and your forwarding. If you have 1.1.1.1 listed as pfsense dns, and pfsense itself goes to lookup something from 1.1.1.1 its just going to use a normal in the clear dns over 53.

If you want to make sure pfsense never asks in the clear and only via dot, then you put your NS in there you want to ask using dot, and set pfsense itself to ignore remote and only ask local host.

uselocal.jpg