@cmcdonald Thanks - I'll give it a test!

The easiest solution to prevent the openvpn reloads / restarts is just to disable the Gateway Alarm Actions.

But still unsure why the status > peers endpoint IP is not being displayed correctly, I think it is picking up the previous / old one.

revised-pfsense-crash-dump.txt

@deltaend All great suggestions and I agree with them. Will add this to the list of things to work on.

@hossimo ha glad to hear it's working! Sometimes the simplest mistakes are the hardest to hunt down. I hit that more than I'd like to admit.

@netblues Thanks for the suggestion. As it happens I already had that bit right, but I stupidly overlooked including the 98 subnet as an allowed IP for the WireGuard tunnel - so problem solved! Thanks again.

thanks Chris, now I see where mi mistake is. will try tomorrow.

@tquade What do I do to move this along. I can provide screen captures, logs, etc. This functioned OK prior to 0.1.6.

Ted

@ligistx-0 I test on several hardware platforms, including the 1100. No issues to report in regards to arm platforms.

Can you report your package versions from the WireGuard > Status page ?

WireGuard is a very quiet protocol, meaning that it won't "come alive" unless there is actually traffic to pass down the tunnel.

Hello.

In my case both Pf has public IP, went I setup WG P2P at first I don't have to open ports, WG open the sockets and don't add any value for keepalive.

If I delete all setup and delete WG from both pfsenses, this issue appear, I have to open udp port for wg in one side because start blocking the packets.

My questions is, in a standard setup like this one, do wg open the sockets or we need to open the port in the WAN always?

Or what is the right steps?

To understand more how WG is working, thanks Chris.

@bubbel I see you're using a TAP device, which is L2. WireGuard only operates at L3 so if this protocol relies on L2 ethernet frames, you won't be able to tunnel that through WG without an additional inner tunnel that can pass L2 frames. That is technically possible but not trivial to configure.

@cmcdonald

Thanks for responding. The problem was solved in another thread: https://forum.netgate.com/topic/168357/system-log-tun_wg0-loop-detected?_=1640196156974

@seanbts You can enter a private key to reuse a key. If you only have the public key, you can't reuse it as a private key cannot be derived from a public key.

This actually reminded me that there are some UI bits in 0.1.6 that are not available on 2.5.2/21.05... I should probably re-version 0.1.6 to be 0.2.0 to reflect that change. Hmmm

@luckman212 It's now appearing in the pfSense package manager, at least for 2.6.0-devel.

@bcruze I'm not sure what outbound NAT has to do with redirecting DNS queries. Can you explain it to me please? What should I change to redirect the VPN interface's DNS queries through the VPN gateway? Thank you

@dma_pf said in DNS Not Working With Phone As Peer:

@bingo600 @GenericStudent

Thanks to both of you for all of your help. I spent several hours this morning working on this issue and finally got it resolved. It was a combination of 3 different issues that resolved it.

Before I get to the solution I want to clarify that the setup I have is using a dedicated assigned interface with a gateway assigned to it for the remote access tunnel. Like this:

496c0552-b686-48e8-a473-ed95c64c0ead-image.png

181b3442-cdf2-4a90-b875-77cbdcbb8e3a-image.png

I found that first issue I had was the NAT Rule I posted above was not needed:
a5d6906c-2253-4acc-9819-437e134e3175-image.png

The second issue I had was the NAT Rule I posted above was also not needed:
d47715d8-e06f-4300-bef7-254f91def188-image.png
The reason it is not needed is because the 10.0.9.0 network is already know to pfsense through the assignment of that network to the wireguard interface and gateway. If there was no local pfsense interface assigned to that wireguard tunnel then the NAT rule would have been required.

The third issue was exactly what @bingo600 pointed out. I did need to create a rule to allow the 10.0.9.0 network to assess the DNS resolver like this:

62e2c01a-58db-42f3-b0a0-7414fceaa19d-image.png

I am very perplexed as to why that allow rule had to be created. The setting I posted above, d707a8d1-46f5-481e-8b49-caf358dfdbb1-image.png
should have allowed the DNS queries as the 10.0.9.0 network is a local pfsense network. The pfsense cleary indicates that by selecting "All" there should not need an allow rule. Per the pfsense documentation:

ab33f227-2fc2-4c90-a98e-9f56e85c129e-image.png

5ac51888-b59e-4150-8021-6bd37b34c152-image.png

I'm obviously misunderstanding something about why that access rule is required. If you can help me understand that better I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thank you guys for all of your help. I've been trying to figure this issue out for several weeks and your input got me pointed in the right direction to get it resolved. 😀

Thank you so much for this post. I was experiencing exactly the same issue and you helped to fix it!