@Gblenn
HI

Problem solved.

The NUC has 2 Ethernet Ports as well as a Wireless Connection Capability.

I did not connect the wireless but it still came up as Connection port 1, so my attempts to configure were using a Wireless link, which was not connected and the first Ethernet Port.

I finally ignored the Wireless link totally, set up the WAN and LAN ports on the pfsense box as Ethernet ports 1 and 2 and lo and behold it works.

Thanks for all the help.

Cheers

Colin

My thanks to all those who have started appreciating my posts and recognising their quality :)

@spyder0552 24.03 is a version old, did you mean 24.11?

There are several posts about CPU usage in 24.11 while the dashboard is left open and the widgets are updating...

Were those binaries replaced? What's the file timestamp compared to others? What pfSense version are you running?

Do you have the full list of deleted binaries?

It has to pass that traffic outbound obviously but no inbound ports need to be open. Replies from remote resources will be allowed by a stateful firewall like pfSense.

Glad you were able to get it sorted. 👍

@stephenw10 made too many changes in the last 48h ;)

now direct and reverse proxy nginx works, just complains about ltm vips

OK so the APU was also on the WAN side of the HA pair?

You should still have the monitoring graph data (RRD) from the time that would show a spike in firewall states.

@johnpoz Both ns1 and ns2 i built are running on VMs, Cluster on Site and the second one a VPS at Hetzner, I have been testing as i have a bunch of Domains that were using my name server and domains using DigitalOcean but who knows what the problem is, i think it could be more down to Geolocation as the IPs of DigitalOceans shows America, I'm in the UK but it would be interesting to see what was causing the problem though.

Regards

@stephenw10 said in Nginx and HNAP1:

It's harmless in pfSense but it's caused by that local client trying to access a page at the pfSense IP address that doesn't exists in pfSense. So most likely that client was previously connecting to that service at the pfSense IP when it was some other host. It could be something on that client trying to actually use HNAP. It could be the client scanning local hosts. It could be malware on that client looking for local exploitable services. Check that client device.

I see. I will try to investigate the client. Good to know that it´s harmless.
Thank you,
Jonna

@chris-doldolia Ell it says it timed out parsing an XML file. How big is your config file?

By chance are you viewing the dashboard when this happens? There are multiple threads about 100% CPU when viewing the dashboard in 24.11.

I agree it should have better documentation. Open a feature request/ bug report here: https://redmine.pfsense.org/

If you can still see available packages then it's still valid and would be valid for any Plus version.

Yup, you won't reach that through an 1100.

@stephenw10 Everything working fine now. OpenVPN suddenly started working as well. All good. Thanks for everyone's help. As an aside, I'm totally bummed that Netgate is moving to a subscription based service. I understand no company makes money giving stuff away for free. However, that's not how it was presented to us when Netgate encouraged us to move to PfSense + Home/Lab, only to then take it way from us. I really like pfSense, but for $129 a year it seems a little overpriced for home use.. I know I can downgrade to CE, but how long will that be free, or even in existence? I'll stay on pfSense + until I no longer can, but I will likely move to another product e.g. OpenSense when the time comes. I even have the pfSense swag all over my computer and comms closet in my home. Oh well, such is life in the world of business.

@stephenw10 said in Native VLAN on sg6100?:

Including due to things I have done! 😉

Who never ? 😁

Well I'd be checking it works still when behind something else because it doesn't look like anything special should be required in pfSense.

Could you use ::1 for the IPv6 server 1 network?

Or what about setting up a ULA fc::/7 for ntp for networks that have dynamic IPv6 and use track interface. Would this work?

Ah, nice. Probably tagged in the modem already then.

@stephenw10 I understand. Thanks for the info.

Then syslog. That was my second thought.