Subcategories

  • Announcements and information about pfSense software posted by the project team

    231 Topics
    3k Posts
    stephenw10S
    Nice catch!
  • Discussions about pfSense software that do not fit into one of the more specific categories below.

    27k Topics
    196k Posts
    SteveITSS
    @winzlo said in pfSense > Frontier modem connection question: I cloned the MAC address of the WAN port on the Gateway and plugged that into my WAN interface on pfSense I would think pfSense wouldn't like having the same MAC address on multiple networks...? Can you use their router and set it as passthrough or DMZ, to pfSense WAN?
  • Discussions about Multi-Instance Management.

    33 Topics
    198 Posts
    luckman212L
    Thanks. If the API is still being worked on, it would be nicer to have a strict success: true | false bool for automation vs parsing a text field.
  • Discussions about installing or upgrading pfSense software

    10k Topics
    64k Posts
    stephenw10S
    No worries. Often the easiest solution!
  • Discussions about firewalling functionality in pfSense software

    10k Topics
    60k Posts
    tinfoilmattT
    Shouldn't it send the request to or through the 75 address That's exactly what it's trying to do—and exactly the traffic that pfSense is blocking on its LAN interface, which is what pfSense should be doing since presumably you haven't explicitly allowed this traffic to egress pfSense's LAN interface. These 10.16.14.157/10.254.4.79- and 25.211.140.233/25.215.186.12-sourced packets should not be egressing the device's Wi-Fi interface (unless they're encapsulated in an already-established tunnel outbound 'through' pfSense).
  • Discussions about Network Address Translation (NAT)

    6k Topics
    31k Posts
    tinfoilmattT
    Make sure you've read through this article, Troubleshooting NAT Port Forwards, from the official docs. Specifically the pfSense software is not the border/edge router and Return Routing subsections may be of particular relevance.
  • Discussions about High Availability, CARP, and utilizing additional IP addresses

    3k Topics
    12k Posts
    SteveITSS
    @sgw They kind of do, but the bottom half has the crossed lines connecting to a line on the other side, not the bricks (firewall). What you described sounded right when I read it. I'd just draw it out on paper. Basically, for each interface, you need two ports and a switch. @sgw said in hardware needs to move to a cluster: I don't plan SYNC as VLAN, no I was just brainstorming sorry if I was confusing.
  • Discussions about Layer 2 Networking, including switching and VLANs

    1k Topics
    10k Posts
    B
    UPDATE: I restarted the switch and my config works now of course. I added a third VLAN to verify and it worked. Thanks for the help everyone!
  • Discussions about routing and Multiple WAN uplinks (WAN Failover, WAN Load Balancing, etc.)

    9k Topics
    42k Posts
    P
    @Gazza77 said in BTNet Dual Wan with virtual gateway: 70.x.x.195/28 You cannot use the same GW on both WAN's You need to ask BT if they can split the /28 into two /29 or /30 subnets for you.
  • Discussions about traffic shaping and limiters

    3k Topics
    16k Posts
    T
    @strannik Thanks for the update. I definitely don't see anything wrong with how you have the limiters and queues configured, and Tail Drop is definitely what you want for the queue management algorithm on both the limiter and the child queue. I'll see whether I can do some more of my own testing to determine whether I seem to get per-host fairness, as I'm configured very much the same. Although I'm also only running it on a small home network. The curious thing is that even without the LAN-side application of the limiters and the masks on the child queues, I would expect things to be generally fair. That is to say, if you only apply limiters on the WAN interface, it should enforce per-flow fairness, based on my understanding. So if host A and host B both run a speed test that makes a connection to a single remote host, they would each be initiating one flow, and FQ_CODEL would split the available bandwidth between them fairly (assuming no other network activity). I think the host-based fairness would come into play more if one host is establishing far more flows than another; say, host A is torrenting with connections to who knows how many remote hosts and host B is just trying to download something from a single remote host. I realize none of that really helps to answer why you're seeing the behavior that you are, more just to express my confusion, and give others reading this thread a chance to point out anything I may have egregiously wrong there. If I think of any other suggestions, I'll update, but unfortunately I'm not sure what else to suggest at the moment. I trust that both the hosts you're using for your testing are wired, since wireless would throw all kinds of wrenches into attempting to assess bandwidth sharing fairness. I suppose if you have a 3rd host it may be interesting to add it to the mix as well. For example, is it always one host that receives an unfair share, or does the unequal distribution seem to move from host to host seemingly at random?
  • Discussions about DHCP, DNS Resolver (Unbound), DNS Forwarder (dnsmasq), and general DNS issues

    7k Topics
    44k Posts
    G
    Hi all, I’m looking for advice/input on a DHCPv6 issue I’ve found with a Sony PS5 when using Kea on pfSense, whereby it doesn’t assign an IPv6 address to the client. I have a working workaround, but I’d like to understand whether this is expected behaviour, a pfSense/Kea issue, a PS5 client bug, or if there is a cleaner fix. I’m still going through a steep learning curve with IPv6, so it may be something I’m doing wrong. Environment • pfSense CE 2.8.1-RELEASE (Running as Proxmox VM) • IPv4/IPv6 dual stack • DHCPv6 backend: Kea • Router Advertisements: Managed • PS5 is on a VLAN along with other IPv6 clients that work fine with Kea. • DHCPv6 used for IPv6 address assignment/static reservations • Clients are allowed; this is not caused by “deny unknown clients” • Problem persists regardless of whether DNS server address is provided by RA or DHCPv6. • The PS5 obtains an IPv6 address immediately if I switch the backend to ISC. I would prefer to keep Kea because I use some of its custom options to specify alternative DNS for some other clients on my main LAN. I have redacted MAC addresses / DUID identifiers and replaced my real IPv6 prefix. The Issue With Kea enabled, the PS5 receives a DHCPv6 Advertise, sends a Request, but Kea does not send a Reply. The PS5 then repeats the Request and never receives/configures the IPv6 address. The Router Advertisement appears normal: pfSense -> PS5: Router Advertisement Flags: managed, other stateful Prefix: 2001:db8:abcd:1234::/64 Router lifetime: 1800 The PS5 then sends a DHCPv6 Solicit: PS5 -> ff02::1:2.547: dhcp6 solicit client-ID hwaddr type 1 <redacted-client-mac> IA_NA IAID: <redacted> option-request DNS-search-list DNS-server Kea responds with an Advertise: pfSense/Kea -> PS5: dhcp6 advertise client-ID hwaddr type 1 <redacted-client-mac> server-ID hwaddr/time type 6 time <redacted-time> <redacted-server-identifier> IA_NA IAID: <redacted> IA_ADDR 2001:db8:abcd:1234::3 preferred lifetime: 4500 valid lifetime: 7200 DNS-server 2001:db8:abcd:1234::1 DNS-search-list home.arpa. The PS5 then sends a Request, but the Server-ID is different: PS5 -> ff02::1:2.547: dhcp6 request IA_NA IAID: <redacted> IA_ADDR 2001:db8:abcd:1234::3 client-ID hwaddr type 1 <redacted-client-mac> server-ID hwaddr/time type 1 time <same-redacted-time> <same-redacted-server-identifier> option-request DNS-search-list DNS-server The important difference is: Kea Advertise: server-ID hwaddr/time type 6 time <time> <identifier> PS5 Request: server-ID hwaddr/time type 1 time <same-time> <same-identifier> After that, Kea sends no Reply. The PS5 repeats the Request with the same server-ID hwaddr/time type 1, and Kea continues not to reply. Therefore, it looks like Kea is advertising a DUID-LLT server identifier with hardware type 6, but the PS5 echoes it back as hardware type 1. My understanding is: htype 1 = Ethernet htype 6 = IEEE 802 Networks Both appear to be valid hardware types, but I believe the DHCPv6 Server Identifier should be treated as an opaque identifier and echoed back exactly. I assume Kea is ignoring the Request because the Server Identifier in the Request no longer matches Kea’s own server DUID. I'm at (and honestly, past) the limit of my knowledge here though so I might be talking a load of rubbish. Workaround I added a global Kea DHCPv6 custom configuration to pin the Kea server-id to htype: 1. In pfSense: Services > DHCPv6 Server > Settings > Custom Configuration: { "server-id": { "type": "LLT", "htype": 1, "time": <same-time-value-as-existing-kea-duid>, "identifier": "<same-server-identifier-as-existing-kea-duid>" } } After applying that, everything works normally and pfSense assigns an IPv6 address to the PS5 via DHCP. I then set up a static address for it, it uses the assigned address and performs neighbour discovery normally. Comparison with ISC If I switch the DHCPv6 backend from Kea to ISC, the PS5 gets an IPv6 address without any special configuration. Therefore, the issue appears specific to the combination of: pfSense/Kea generated server-id using htype 6 and the PS5 changing/echoing that server-id back as htype 1 As soon as I change the backend back to Kea, the issue returns and it fails to obtain an address (neither dynamic nor static). Questions Is Kea using DUID-LLT with hardware type 6 expected/normal on pfSense, FreeBSD, virtual NICs, or VLAN interfaces? Is the PS5 at fault here (although I couldn't find any evidence of this being a known PS5 IPv6 bug) for changing the Server-ID htype from 6 to 1, or is there any reason Kea/pfSense should be using 1 by default? Is there a better/cleaner pfSense-supported way to pin the Kea DHCPv6 server-id, other than using global Kea custom configuration? Could this be considered a pfSense/Kea integration issue? Is this worth raising as a pfSense bug? Are there any long-term downsides to pinning the Kea DHCPv6 server-id to DUID-LLT htype: 1? I’d appreciate any input because as stated above, I’m at the very limit of my knowledge on IPv6 and feel a bit out of my depth trying to problem solve. Maybe at least this will help someone as I do have a working solution, I just don't fully understand why or how!
  • Discussions about IPv6 connectivity and services

    2k Topics
    20k Posts
    Bob.DigB
    There is so much left to be desired when it comes to PD...
  • Discussions about IPsec VPNs

    6k Topics
    24k Posts
    tinfoilmattT
    If there is no other way to make this work I think there might be. I'd need to confirm for myself to be sure.
  • Discussions about OpenVPN

    10k Topics
    54k Posts
    S
    It's now fixed in Plus and CE: https://forum.netgate.com/post/1242673
  • Discussions about Captive Portal, vouchers, and related topics

    4k Topics
    19k Posts
    A
    @johnpoz Sorry didn't exsplain myself im not using ppsk at the moment I trying to get it to work, then i can turn captive portal off. I was wondering if anyone has setup ppsk with tunnel-passcode as the login in freeradius and openwrt APs?
  • Anything that does not fit in other categories related to the webGUI

    2k Topics
    10k Posts
    GertjanG
    @the-other said in Cant access webGUI: Expired certificate!: or you could do it as sasid in the official documentary... https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/troubleshooting/locked-out.html look for https cert problems... https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/troubleshooting/locked-out.html#https-certificate-problems pfSsh.php playback generateguicert should do the trick. It regenerates a new (CA) certificate, assigns it to the GUI, and restarts the GUI. @kenw said in Cant access webGUI: Expired certificate!: CE 2.8 2.8 : I don't recall, but newer versions do warn you about a certificate that you use, and is about to expire. pfSense is even sends notifications (mail or other) if you've set this up.
  • Discussions about wireless networks, interfaces, and clients

    2k Topics
    11k Posts
    S
    @ortizat typically for syslog it using the following ports. 514 for UDP 601 for TCP 6514 TLS Netgear devices i have dealt with usually use UDP by default so you need to send the logs to the Syslog server UDP port. As someone who uses syslog daily i don't think you are going to get any benefit from collecting logs from an AP as 99.9% will be noise. Usually I would only collect the audit logs and in most cases that can only be done by the Controller of the APs/Switches etc.. so we would only collect logs from the controller.
  • Discussions about monitoring via SNMP

    197 Topics
    609 Posts
    C
    I figured it out . My firewalls had an old unused OpenVPN client connection on it that was unstable and every time it reconnected, it got a new IP address causing pfsense to restart all packages, and since it took down SNMP, we wouldn't get alerted about the interface going down either... So this issue is solved now
  • Discussions about pfSense documentation, including the book

    188 Topics
    1k Posts
    A
    Ok i will put together a new detailed guide
  • Topics related to developing pfSense: coding styles, skills, questions etc.
    1k Topics
    7k Posts
    C
    I wont take credit for this as I found it on an old post, but it does work reasonably well. I suggest the developers make this the default /etc/resolv.conf template. Simple add two lines to the bottom of resolv.conf as follows. 'options timeout:1 options retries:1' I assume however this only is effective if use of the file is configured in general settings, and in addition it wont affect queries coming from LAN going to unbound (which is fine, as this is designed to only affect pfSense locally to mitigate dashboard issues). This basically should set a 1 sec timeout for queries done locally by pfSense with only 1 retry. If WAN is down, for me this changes from a almost perpetual wait to about 3-5 seconds for the dashboard to load.
  • Discussions about playing network-based games behind pfSense from consoles, PCs, etc.

    437 Topics
    3k Posts
    w0wW
    @tahirmehmoodkhokhar Hi there! Is your WAN configured for DHCP, or is it something like PPPoE? IPv6 seems to have been completely broken for me since 26.03 RC, but I’m using a multi-WAN configuration.
  • Discussions about virtualizing pfSense in hypervisors such as AWS, VMware, Hyper-V, Xen, KVM, qemu, etc

    2k Topics
    12k Posts
    SteveITSS
    @AyanHM The checkbox is to let Windows also use that network card. If it is a network card that is connected towards the Internet you probably do not want Windows to listen on/use it also. In other words Windows should have its own network card connected to the pfSense LAN and not be connected directly to the Internet.
  • Discussions about pfSense hardware support

    8k Topics
    70k Posts
    stephenw10S
    Nothing shown there is unexpected. The idle processes shown as using high CPU are normal. That's what shows as using CPU cycles when nothing else requires them. I assume it was not dropping packets at that time? You should not run Kea on the 3100. There are known upstream bugs in arm32 that affect it. That wouldn't cause packet loss though. You should upgrade. 24.03 is now a very old release.
  • Discussions about collaboratively raising money for a feature. To start a thread you must offer a starting price and be very specific on the feature you would like to see.

    458 Topics
    6k Posts
    B
    @luckman212 thanks. i put a post up.
  • 10k Topics
    65k Posts
    P
    @SteveITS - perfect. Thank you.
Copyright 2026 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.