@stephenw10 thank you!

@SteveITS said in System on 23.05.1-RELEASE not showing available updates?: @ScottCall Try https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/troubleshooting/upgrades.html#upgrade-not-offered-library-errors Thank you that did it (switching to the previous stable and back again) -S

[image: 1702953553817-screenshot-2023-12-18-at-6.37.53-pm-resized.png] !!!! CIPHER TEXT !!!! 96658 86791 06602 58887 06408 39604 09151 05508 05869 69555 04957 78785 72401 60078 36796 95036 03789 61329 36865 65780 02001 [image: 1702953630538-screenshot-2023-12-18-at-6.39.56-pm-resized.png] Decoded ATTACKATDAWN. BYDAWNIMEAN0500.NOT0915LIKEYOUDIDLASTTIME…A I wrote this program to share with fellow students to try to get some interested in ciphers with code. it's about 1,191 lines of code, its on my GitHub if you want to check it out https://github.com/JonathanDLee24/VictorCipher

@stephenw10 thanks to explain how that works. I was amazed about how much old items are listed in that config.xml file I never had pfblocker set to save configuration and but in the config.xml it was set to save. When I reinstalled it to remove it it still was set to not safe, I had to manually set to no and it finally removed it.

@johnpoz Your telling me they are old. My immediate reaction was to tell them well when are we phasing these out? They are finally already in process to replace these machines finally.

Hmm, I would still run that test if you can so we can be sure what does arrive. If anything. If you have details of what you had you to add on the Juniper that would be helpful.

There's no VM image specifically but you can use the 2.7.2 ISO image to install in a VM: https://www.pfsense.org/download/ If you have any real hardware available I would try that first but if not a VM is still a good test.

I think I see the problem here. Left some notes on your TAC ticket.

@stephenw10 Not sure what did it, but I moved WAN to the native 1GB and it was stuck at 45-50Mbps. Then I removed the UE0 and moved the WAN to bge1 1GB. Rebooted the router and then I was exceeding the 300Mbps ~338Mbps. Not sure what it was but now I am back in business! Thank you all really appreciate it!

@stephenw10 Didnt even realize that was possible! It will compliment the newsletter subscription perfectly! Thank you @stephenw10 @SteveITS !!!

Hmm, as far as I know the order doesn't matter there. Where have you seen that cause a problem?

Yes, it's a problem that has existed for years and despite numerous safety belts we have put in continues to hit users. But that is fixed from 2.7.1/23.09. Upgrades from there require the user to opt-in to the new branch so installing packages without upgrading continues to use to old branch.

@stephenw10 Thanks!!! fixed my duplicate issues re added the separators. [image: 1702791102040-screenshot-2023-12-16-at-9.30.37-pm-resized.png]

Ah, you mean it stops at the interfaces assign screen during boot? That should only happen if a configured interface is not present for some reason. When it's booted and configured what interfaces do you have assigned?

@nomadmd glad you got it sorted..

@viragomann ah ok so wasnt serious as i thought here i thought i was going to be locked out and be not able to get back in... least i refreshed... learn something new about pfsense every day... learning experience especially for years when using a dlink or a an asus router lol

Other than having additional storage space the SSD is a lot faster than eMMC and has a much higher write life. For some packages that store a lot of logs or cached data locally you would want that. If you haven't seen an issue on the 3100 and plan to use the same config on the 6100 you will likely be fine with the eMMC. Steve

@Neoveo said in My pc isn't DNS resolving but my pfSense box is: DHCP6 Gateway is still showing up as Pending and Unknown. Delete the now pointless gateway.

This is an old topic I know, but there's a doc page now: https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/general/plus.html

@Firewaller1 You do not need to worry about the WAN IP address assignment. It can be DHCP or static. It does not matter. pfSense itself should select WAN as its default gateway. Your concern is only the LAN side and you already have a static IP address for that. I understand that you have a local network where routing is handled by a L3 switch and you have created a routed link between the L3 switch and pfSense. BTW, that’s my choice, too. In a case like that, pfSense does not know anything about your local network. Because of this, you need a gateway to your LAN on pfSense and one or more static routes. Also, pfSense needs to be the default gateway for your local network. In your /30 link, you have two IP addresses, one on L3 switch and one on pfSense. You need to use the pfSense IP address in the default route on the switch. On the other hand, the switch IP address needs to be defined as a gateway on the LAN side of pfSense. This gateway needs to be used in the static routes to your local network. You need one static route for each LAN subnets you want to interface with pfSense. If the local network is in a completely different address space than pfSense, you probably could use a single, more generic, static route. Placing a switch on the WAN side of pfSense is another issue.