Yes

resolved! Issue was the following I corrected a few things on your config: Your Outbound NAT configuration was malformed. I corrected it to utilize Hybrid mode and configured a single Outbound NAT for your Wireguard connection, which should be much cleaner. I updated your routing table to be Automatic and switched to Policy-based routing within the firewall rules under Firewall --> Rules --> LAN I updated the name of the interface for the Wireguard tunnel to be called TORGUARD and set the MSS clamping to 1350. This can probably be bumped back up to 1400, but I wanted to make sure the clamping was small enough to avoid fragmentation. I cleaned up some redundant firewall rules and a few other "odds and ends".

@HFADmin If it is no Site2Site-VPN then you don't need any gateways in the first place... If that is true but you want to monitor the connection then you could create dummy-gateways just to ping the remote ip-addresses.

@Bob.Dig what's the right place?

This is what I observe in the system logs when this event occurs: not letting me post the logs here due to ant spam filter you can see it on my post on reddit here in the reply's: https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/1mrqwg3/wireguard_tunnel_disconnectreconnect_events_cause/

Same here. It started after I installed 25.07. Then it settled down by itself after a few days. It started again after upgrading to 25.07.1. WireGuard works fine (it merely connects to the remote site from this one). However, I am refraining from upgrading the remote, because if the 'service' does not start, I fear it will not listen to incoming connections, which would leave me in a difficult situation. The other topic I had opened before finding this: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/198449/25.07-release-amd64-wireguard-service-reported-stopped-yet-tunnel-trafic-clearly-is-ok

I took some days before reporting again... Since then I installed: 25.07.1-RELEASE (amd64) built on Fri Aug 15 20:42:00 CEST 2025, and the issue re-appeared but did not (yet) clear by itself. Wireguard works well, that system has only one tunnel with another site, using interface assigned mode. I depend on it, and it works flawlessly. Yet the wireguard configuration page, its status page as well as the services widget on the dashboard, all report the Wireguard service as stopped, with the usual icon to start it. On the dashboard the gateways widget shows Pending for the IPv4 and IPv6 wireguard gateways. On the other hand, and it is logical as the packets do flow through the tunnel, the Wireguard widget on the dashboard shows the tunnel up with traffic. To be complete, the watchdog service, if wireguard is configured there, spend its life at detecting wireguard stopped and attempting to start it, which does not work. The other side of the tunnel is still on 25.07-RELEASE (amd64). I'm reluctant to upgrade that side too, with fear to loose the wireguard tunnel altogether. Aren't there any logs from that wireguard package? I can't find anything of that kind.

I figured out the issue. I missed adding the 3rd locations Lan to the static routing. Now all is working perfect.

@Gertjan Hello, I installed the official app of vpn #1 on the crappy laptop but on the main laptop I did not install official app of vpn #2, I used it via wireguard. I am not worried about vpn #1 provider and how much they know about me. They already have my ip address since I connect to them direct. My goal is to hide from vpn #2. I don't want them to know I am the same person who used this service before. and thanks for the heads up regarding windows. I had a feeling that would come up. I know windows is spyware but for my purposes it doesn't matter since I really just need to make sure vpn #2 doesn't know this user is the same user who signed up last year. (ok yes I know, how do you know vpn #1 or #2 are not owned by ms? I agree, you dont know)

@boyan1 said in Wireguard Gateway not coming up after reboot.: W Hey man, im trying to make the SITE A use internet of SITE B as you did, but there is no means of making that works. How did you make that works? Could you tell me please? Thanks!

@mreardon said in Wireguard Tunnels - Gateway Recovery Behaviour intermitent: This is still an issue as of 2.8.0 / 25.07, and it drives me crazy. Gateway failure works as expected, the wireguard tunnels will fail over to the backup gateway and continue on as normal, but will never recover once the failed gateway comes back online. While a reboot will (usually) fix it, I usually just go into my routing settings and mark the secondary gateway as down, forcing it to revert back to the primary... the users tend to dislike it when I reboot the firewall in the middle of the day Thanks for adding to the post - genuinely seems to be an issue, unsure if it's a Wireguard implementation problem or a pfSense issue at this stage though. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but it seems even worse on 25.07. I've got my Wireguard VPN's set as tiered, but pfsense is now pretty much ignoring those tiers in the failover group and firing traffic over whatever one it fancies. Nothing has changed in my setup. Same failover group, same rules pointing traffic at the failover group with the appropriate tiers set - but the tiers don't seem to make any odds. I've recreated the failover group too. I've gone back to 24.11 and it works fine there, so I'll stick on this one for a while I think.

SOLVED. Turns out nothing wrong with my tunnel setup and not due to CGNAT. The reason PING works and other traffic doesn't is due to packet size and MTU. Something on the wireless network means that the default MTU doesn't work, forcing a smaller MTU to 1280 on pfSenseB fixed this. This Reddit thread has more details of this issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/WireGuard/comments/qmsa2n/ping_works_but_sites_arent_loading/

Hi again, to be honest: I guess, I did not remember exactly what I did 2 years ago. May I was mistaken by the interface name opt2 because the SG-3100 has a physical port OPT1 and I mixed up physical and virtual names. The goal was to use 2 different tunnels, one for the mobile clients and one for the site-2-site connection. And now all is running in that way . Regards

@Bob-Dig thanks But I cannot understand why the FTP performance is crippled when going via Wireguard and not when going via the WAN. The same happens for NFS and SMB file sharing protocols. The performance over Wireguard is rather poor, although I haven't tried these over an unencrypted WAN for obvious reasons so can't really compare.