Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    How to get pfSense WAN to accept VLAN 0

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    414 Posts 25 Posters 209.2k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • stephenw10S
      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
      last edited by

      It shows 12.3 there because that's what current snapshots were built on.

      C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        cucu007 @stephenw10
        last edited by

        @stephenw10 Steve,
        Do we have some sort of timeline when the newer snapshots (based on BSD v13) will be compile and release to the community to test?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • stephenw10S
          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
          last edited by

          Nothing fixed but I would guess 'weeks'. We have some initial snapshots internally and are working through the show-stopping issues as quickly as possible so we can restart public snapshot builds.

          M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • M
            michaellacroix @stephenw10
            last edited by

            @stephenw10

            Hey All, you guys see that pfsense is skipping over freebsd 13 and going straight to 14. I'm gonna find some spare hardware and load 14 on it and check it as I haven't yet.

            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              Schwiing @michaellacroix
              last edited by

              @michaellacroix Wonder if this means vlan0 will be handled natively by pfsense

              M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                michaellacroix @Schwiing
                last edited by

                @schwiing
                It was in freebsd 13 so I assume??? it will be in 14.

                S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  Schwiing @michaellacroix
                  last edited by

                  @michaellacroix guess y'all will have to let me know. The fiber feeder got delayed at my residence anyhow

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    It should certainly contain any fixes that are in 13, yes. Though I don't think that includes a fix for the e1000 driver not passing it.

                    S M 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      Schwiing @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10 i have ix anyway. But perhaps this means netgraph wont be needed anymore

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M
                        michaellacroix @stephenw10
                        last edited by

                        @stephenw10
                        Its suppose to have a ton of driver updates so we will keep our fingers crossed for you....

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • stephenw10S
                          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                          last edited by

                          Yeah, the situation is unclear because we have reports here and in other threads that conflict with test results. What I can say is that testing is much easier in main because you can just set a priority tag on any interface using ifconfig directly:

                          [2.7.0-DEVELOPMENT][admin@m470-2.stevew.lan]/root: ifconfig igb12 pcp 4
                          [2.7.0-DEVELOPMENT][admin@m470-2.stevew.lan]/root: ifconfig igb12
                          igb12: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500
                          	description: PCP0
                          	options=4e100bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,VLAN_HWFILTER,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6,NOMAP>
                          	ether 00:90:7f:db:ca:b2
                          	pcp 4
                          	inet6 fe80::290:7fff:fedb:cab2%igb12 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0xd
                          	inet 10.13.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.13.0.255
                          	media: Ethernet autoselect
                          	status: no carrier
                          	nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
                          

                          And then you will see:

                          23:16:10.138805 00:90:7f:db:ca:b2 > 00:90:7f:87:dc:7a, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 0, p 4, ethertype IPv4, (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 53358, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
                              10.13.0.1 > 10.13.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 59732, seq 0, length 64
                          

                          However the em NIC I'm sending that to, also under 2.7-dev (main) does not see that packet at all.
                          Testing against a different NIC type though, fxp here, the traffic is seen and we see responses:

                          23:20:18.274026 00:90:7f:db:ca:b2 > 00:90:7f:87:dc:74, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length 102: vlan 0, p 4, ethertype IPv4, (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 26894, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
                              10.13.0.1 > 10.13.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 60464, seq 0, length 64
                          23:20:18.274140 00:90:7f:87:dc:74 > 00:90:7f:db:ca:b2, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 98: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 36849, offset 0, flags [none], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
                              10.13.0.2 > 10.13.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 60464, seq 0, length 64
                          

                          The confusing thing though is that that also works when testing against an igc NIC in 22.05 and my understanding was that it should not....

                          M J 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • M
                            michaellacroix @stephenw10
                            last edited by

                            @stephenw10

                            Thanks Stephen, thats good to know.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • J
                              Jarhead @stephenw10
                              last edited by

                              @stephenw10
                              Is there any chance vlan0 can be fixed in 2.6 with tunable??
                              Reason I'm asking is my brother uses pfSense also, and he does not have a problem getting an address from Frontier. My router at his house does not get an address because of vlan0.
                              I had him give me his config and I'm gonna try to put it on the same hardware he uses to see if it works at my house but I can't imagine it's that easy.
                              Just a fluke maybe?

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • stephenw10S
                                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                                last edited by

                                I'm not aware of any tunable that would do it. What driver is that? Did you try 22.05 there? Or are you able to?

                                J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • J
                                  Jarhead @stephenw10
                                  last edited by

                                  @stephenw10
                                  I didn't.
                                  He's using 2.6 as am I and I can't understand why he's not effected by vlan0.

                                  M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • M
                                    michaellacroix @Jarhead
                                    last edited by

                                    @jarhead Is her using pfsense as a VM? The software switch strip out the vlan tag

                                    J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • J
                                      Jarhead @michaellacroix
                                      last edited by

                                      @michaellacroix
                                      Nope. Protectli vault.
                                      I have the same hardware for my test router.
                                      His works, mine doesn't.

                                      Might try his config on my protectli this weekend just to see if it'll work at my house.

                                      M 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • M
                                        michaellacroix @Jarhead
                                        last edited by

                                        @jarhead Let us know your findings.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M
                                          michaellacroix @Jarhead
                                          last edited by

                                          @jarhead I wonder if frontier is making changes so their fiber offerings are compatible to all third party products.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • stephenw10S
                                            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                                            last edited by

                                            Hmm, that's weird. Were you able to confirm they are actually using VLAN0 there?

                                            J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.