@dhiru Yes, agreed - and similar to the link above from @AB5G. There is a way to do this in the webConfigurator as well (you can set MSS inside the interface). I tried it, and it works ... and also fixes my issue, thanks! What's very odd, I can see the MSS webConfigurator setting works (based on tcpdump captures). But when I upgraded from 2.5-RC to 2.5 => it no longer seems to be needed. Huh? Thanks!

@beachbum2021 disregard, apparently there's already a thread on this subject.

@p1erre That's pretty cool. I don't have a WireGuard endpoint to play with so thanks for testing it. It kind of negates the point of using WireGuard for slight it's speed benefit over openVPN, but still that's pretty cool.

Please create a bugreport: https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/development/bug-reports.html

Well I'm an idiot. You CAN use a FQDN in the peer configuration. Way to go Netgate!

https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/wireguard-s2s.html In General Values Tunnel Subnet should be 10.15.210.0/24 not 10.6.210.0/24 ? -Rico

@ab5g I went through all the rules again and found an incorrect interface specified. All is working now, thanks a lot for the help. Now that it's working, I played around a bit an noticed I don't actually need the NAT rule to talk to my LAN (just the WireGuard firewall rule seems to be enough). Is there some additional reason for me to add the NAT as well?

@stephenw10 Thank you, before I do anything going to run the new 2.5RC build "as is" a few days just to to make sure there is no fall out from the upgrade. Currently up with new build just under 5 hours and not seeing any issues but still would like to give it a day or two before attempting the WG transition. Thank you again for the info

@chuckm2000 If the Wireguard tunnel is up then its routing on the pi. What you need to do it to NAT the remote clients on the pi such that for the local LAN it looks like the traffic is coming from the pi. For instance I have the following on my pi . cat /etc/wireguard/wg0.conf [Interface] Address = 10.100.100.50/32 PrivateKey = xxxxxxxxx= PostUp = iptables -A FORWARD -i wg0 -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i wg0 -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE [Peer] PublicKey = Pxxxxxc= AllowedIPs = 10.100.100.0/24,192.168.1.0/24 Endpoint = 58.182.47.98:51820 P.S: I am not on QRZ.

@jimp said in "Service" Restart Button, Auto Restart (WireGuard): Going to need a lot more information than "it doesn't work". Completely understand ... LOL! Just wanted to mention it, to see if you had also observed the same thing. I'll try to check routes, etc. the next time I reboot, get that info to you (unfortunately, can't reboot right now). Thanks!

@jimp I was in fact talking about having pfsense present a qr code you could scan on your phone. But it would be handy to have that same data as something you can cut/paste in a text format for joining two pfsense boxes. I have less of an idea what that would look like.

Policy based routing, one of the most asked questions on this forum, suggest you do a search. https://forum.netgate.com/search?term=policy%20based%20routing&in=posts&matchWords=all&sortBy=relevance&sortDirection=desc&showAs=posts https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/multiwan/policy-route.html?highlight=policy#

Adding 0.0.0.0/0 in WG Allowed IP for the Peers does not add it to the routing table and will not interfere with the routing table. You can validate this by looking at Diagnostics > Routes. https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/vpn/wireguard/routing.html

@ab5g Will do, thanks!

It's because in this particular case we had been testing Wireguard internally before it was announced on CE. The bug was noted there and a report opened. Steve

Generally speaking, you can configure it as a peer to a remote provider. It's all in how you set it up. See https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/wireguard-client.html for an example.

I haven't tried using those values so I'm not certain if they would actually work as expected. I'd rather err on the side of caution and make users enter them.

@vbman213 That link helps, appreciate it!

@vbman213 said in Routing Issue when Using 'WireGuard' interface group versus individual wireguard interfaces: For testing purposes I have a simple pass all rule on both WG0 and WG1 OPT interfaces. However, when I created a test remote access wireguard tunnel and created a generic pass all rule on the built-in WireGuard Interface Group, this broke the scenario above. As soon as I delete the generic pass all rule on the WireGuard interface group, the scenario above starts working again. I can work around this by creating a more specific rule in the WireGuard interface group rules to only pass traffic sourced from the remote access tunnel subnet, but I still find it weird that a pass all rule in the wireguard group breaks things, but a pass all rule in the individual WG OPT interfaces doesn't. Rules on the group tab don't get reply-to so return routing follows the routing table. Rules on the assigned interface tab get reply-to so packets matching those rules will exit back out the interface they entered. That's how it's always worked on any interface type, not new to WireGuard.

@dem said in Wireguard S2S Tunnel Gateway IP?: @jimp It sounds like the field can only take one address, either IPv4 or IPv6, since "address" and "gateway" are singular in the description. I noticed that after I replied. I changed it to say "addresses" and added "(comma separated)" which should help.