Yep so use the memstick-serial image and write it to a USB flash drive. Boot from that and use the serial console to reinstall to the SSD. Steve

you can gitsync RELENG_2_2 to get what's currently 2.2.1-DEVELOPMENT. Snapshots will be coming back soon.

@johnkeates: Anyway, for now, disabling tx/rx offloading on pfSense's VIF/TAP is pretty much 'the fix'. In my setup disabling TX offloading alone was sufficient and also consistent with my reasoning: Only the sending of packets from/via dom0 to pfSense (i.e. the TX-side) needs to have a correct checksum. RX offloading - whatever that does - is only relevant for the dom0/domU receiving packets from pfSense and that has never been an issue as for any packet received on the vif interface the checksum is anyways ignored in any case. @johnkeates: Furter investigations regarding pf or any other part after the interface on the pfSense domU might be useful to determine the source of the dropped packets and if it's configurable to stop dropping them. Unfortunately I have no idea what's going on inside pf or pfSense, so that's for somebody else to comment … Regards Atom2

Steps 4-8 should be enough with pfSense 2.2.

Seems to be layer 8 issue ;)  Having a lot of those of late.

Silly question  ;D  Have you "assigned" the interfaces ? https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Installing_pfSense#Assign_Interfaces_on_the_Console

@stephenw10: Nice.  :) defently yes! i was about to get insane :D i think i tried to install it like 20 times

I ended up with a new install of 2.2 and importing config. Worked fine and was done in a few minutes.

I ended up with a new install of 2.2 and importing config. Worked fine and was done in a few minutes.

@exograpix: I do agree some of your points, but in today's world nobody apart from big corporate will put a box for every other function. Pfsense as a firewall is good, but basic function like web filtering http/https is part of the utm device, which pfsense project claim to have. Can you share a link where ESF has claim pfSense is a UTM? I dont recall them saying that, but the community has.

Run the minimum amount of TCP traffic necessary to replicate issues and packet capture it. Should see on one LAN or the other repeated retransmissions of large packets if it's an issue along those lines. With mssfix down to 1200 not having made a difference, I suspect that isn't the problem. Capture likely has clues as to what it is. Try various ping sizes with DF set and see at what size traffic starts getting dropped.

I realize that it does work, but many people don't know (nor should they have to in my opinion) how to install packages that aren't in the package repository - that is kind of what it is for… So end users know it has been tested, works, and is authentic. I'm not personally against unofficial packages though, and agree that is better than using pfBlocker (non-NG) in 2.2.

The BIOS for such an old board (remember it's a core 2 duo system) is as up to date as it's going to get. I had seen the unknown power management option, and now all are set the same, to adaptive. It seems to run at about the same temperature, or maybe even slightly cooler.  So maybe the displayed current CPU speed is calculated differently, between FreeBSD 8 & 10.  I assume there is lots of scope for such a minor change to have been made.

yes I did thanks for the correction.

Apparently the yacc parsing got more strict in pf. It used to accept those  (but we denied them). It was also the source of problem with some of the traffic shaping problems with DSCP and tag matching/setting. The latter of which have been fixed for 2.2.1. Numeric aliases and interface names are definitely not allowed though, it's lucky they ever worked.

@stephenw10: Ah, I missed you Doktor. Forum wasn't the same without you.  ;D Ditto, ol' Doktornotor cracks me up.  ;D

@cmb: @bradenmcg: I would love to see something analogous to Cisco's "VTI" and Juniper's "ST" interfaces for VPN; most major firewall vendors have something similar to this, even "weird" stuff like Palo Alto support this (and PA doesn't do IPsec+GRE so I have no other way to replicate it against pfSense). I would like to see that. It'd require a good deal of work, as there are missing pieces in underlying bits. Not on the near future road map at least. That's what I've been reading, apparently neither BSD or Linux have the correct tunnel interface existing on the OS, making this more complicated.  That said, Ubiquiti has VTI in their gear, so it can't be too bad to do… I believe they are some form of *nix underneath, wonder if the source for this is open? I may have to grab an EdgeRouter and stick it behind my pfSense box just for VPN purposes.  (I'm not likely to ever ditch pfSense at the edge, unless someone else starts supporting UPnP/NAT-PMP, since I have game systems.)

What type of hardware is this? If you're more comfortable communicating in French (I see your IP is in France at least, making assumption from there), you might try the French board. https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?board=7.0

I got some Trim help here if you decide to do a fresh install: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=66622.0