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

    LAGG and VPNs

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    79 Posts 2 Posters 11.8k 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.
    • S
      stevencavanagh @stevencavanagh
      last edited by

      Ok, swapped over to em0 and it connected at 1G!

      So, took the same lead and plugged into a number of ports on both switches and always connected at 1G.

      Consequently, went around each of the 5 ports individually with the same lead and results below:-

      em0 - 1G
      igb0 - 1G
      igb1 - 1G
      igb2 - 100M
      igb3 - 100M

      Hence card 2 has the problem. Cards 1&2 are the same type and new.

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

        swapped over the LAN cards out of desperation and now have a 1G connection (not LAG)...

        fd414c78-e689-4c7f-9987-21bd3be3ca5c-image.png

        However, ignoring LAGG for now, I have a physical connection between the 2 switches but unable to access anything on the other switch. Must be VLAN issue but not sure where to go from here

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

          So, I now have everything up in terms of connections but running on a single cable, not LAGG on igb1.

          0382671e-3c22-4e21-a49f-8797f701abc7-image.png

          Firewall is fully open which at some point I will need to lock down but LAG now the remaining issue.

          NIC 2 seems to be the issue.

          Initially I installed pfsense with only 1 NIC card in and then added the second later once I had bought it. Pfsense detected it so I assumed all was good. Could that be causing the issue?

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

            No it shouldn't make any difference how the cards were added. I agree there's something different about that second card.

            Check the revision is the same as shown by: pciconf -lv

            It could be a firmware difference. Looks for the eeprom version in the boot log like:

            igb0: EEPROM V3.11-0 eTrack 0x80000469
            
            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              stevencavanagh @stephenw10
              last edited by

              Info from pciconf -1v

              igb2@pci0:2:0:0: class=0x020000 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x10c9 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0xa03c
              vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
              device = '82576 Gigabit Network Connection'
              class = network
              subclass = ethernet
              igb3@pci0:2:0:1: class=0x020000 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x10c9 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0xa03c
              vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
              device = '82576 Gigabit Network Connection'
              class = network
              subclass = ethernet

              Where do I find the boot log?

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

                How does that compare with igb0/1?

                You can see the boot log in the gui or in /var/log/dmesg.boot

                S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  stevencavanagh @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  Exactly the same as igb0/1

                  Boot log shows EEPROM version to be the same for all 4 ports

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

                    Hmm, maybe just a faulty card then.

                    Have you tested the LAGG using the NIC that links at 1G? I bet it works fine. ๐Ÿ˜‰

                    S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      stevencavanagh @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      Can't test it as igb0 is used for WAN and igb1 for LAN but I have no doubt that it will work for LAGG!

                      That is why I purchased the 2nd card to use separately for the LAGG interface.

                      I think the card is fine as I can connect to the card in the pfsense box from the laptop and the link is immediately 1G on both ports and I've switched the 2 cards around in the pfsense box and the issue remains on the card 2 position i.e. the problem does not transfer with the card. It could be the PC but doubt it and there is no more spare slots to try as it is a DELL Optiplex SFF PC.

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

                        Hmm odd. You might try using pciconfg -lvc Make sure both show the same PCIe speeds.

                        S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • S
                          stevencavanagh @stephenw10
                          last edited by

                          Look the same to me! Below is igb1 & igb2, the other 2 are the same.

                          igb1@pci0:1:0:1: class=0x020000 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x10c9 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0xa03c
                          vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
                          device = '82576 Gigabit Network Connection'
                          class = network
                          subclass = ethernet
                          cap 01[40] = powerspec 3 supports D0 D3 current D0
                          cap 05[50] = MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit, vector masks
                          cap 11[70] = MSI-X supports 10 messages, enabled
                          Table in map 0x1c[0x0], PBA in map 0x1c[0x2000]
                          cap 10[a0] = PCI-Express 2 endpoint max data 256(512) FLR RO NS
                          max read 512
                          link x1(x4) speed 2.5(2.5) ASPM disabled(L0s/L1)
                          ecap 0001[100] = AER 1 1 fatal 0 non-fatal 1 corrected
                          ecap 0003[140] = Serial 1 98b785ffff00fd44
                          ecap 000e[150] = ARI 1
                          ecap 0010[160] = SR-IOV 1 IOV disabled, Memory Space disabled, ARI disabled
                          0 VFs configured out of 8 supported
                          First VF RID Offset 0x0180, VF RID Stride 0x0002
                          VF Device ID 0x10ca
                          Page Sizes: 4096 (enabled), 8192, 65536, 262144, 1048576, 4194304
                          igb2@pci0:2:0:0: class=0x020000 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x10c9 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0xa03c
                          vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
                          device = '82576 Gigabit Network Connection'
                          class = network
                          subclass = ethernet
                          cap 01[40] = powerspec 3 supports D0 D3 current D0
                          cap 05[50] = MSI supports 1 message, 64 bit, vector masks
                          cap 11[70] = MSI-X supports 10 messages, enabled
                          Table in map 0x1c[0x0], PBA in map 0x1c[0x2000]
                          cap 10[a0] = PCI-Express 2 endpoint max data 256(512) FLR RO NS
                          max read 512
                          link x1(x4) speed 2.5(2.5) ASPM disabled(L0s/L1)
                          ecap 0001[100] = AER 1 0 fatal 0 non-fatal 1 corrected
                          ecap 0003[140] = Serial 1 98b785ffff00fd48
                          ecap 000e[150] = ARI 1
                          ecap 0010[160] = SR-IOV 1 IOV disabled, Memory Space disabled, ARI disabled
                          0 VFs configured out of 8 supported
                          First VF RID Offset 0x0180, VF RID Stride 0x0002
                          VF Device ID 0x10ca
                          Page Sizes: 4096 (enabled), 8192, 65536, 262144, 1048576, 4194304

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

                            Yup, looks the same to me too. ๐Ÿ˜•

                            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • S
                              stevencavanagh @stephenw10
                              last edited by

                              The only other thing I can think of is that the 2 PCIe slots (1 of x4, 1 of x16) are an older version than the card installed and therefore defaulting to the lower speed but this doesn't make sense either as when I plug my laptop direct to the pfsense PC it gets 1G

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

                                Yeah to be honest I would still expect the ports to link at 1G even if the PCIe slot was somehow unable to carry it.
                                I can't think of anything that would follow the slot like that. ๐Ÿ˜•

                                S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • S
                                  stevencavanagh @stephenw10
                                  last edited by

                                  Tried everything I can possibly think of now, including days googling around it but to no avail. Contacted Draytek again but no joy there either!

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

                                    Hmm, I wonder if there's a power restriction on that slot and the NIC sees that. Must be something different about that slot

                                    S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • S
                                      stevencavanagh @stephenw10
                                      last edited by

                                      Are you meaning a power restriction in the PC settings or a potential fault?

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

                                        I mean if somehow the board cannot supply full power to both slots the NIC links at lower speed in order to use less. Guessing at this point but there has to be something different about that slot causing the NIC to behave differently. There no difference shown in the docs for the system?

                                        S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • S
                                          stevencavanagh @stephenw10
                                          last edited by

                                          Looking around on google there is definitely something going on with the 16x slot on the SFF DELL PCs, some work at 1G and some donโ€™t apparently but no fix for it!

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

                                            Mmm, probably not much we can do then. ๐Ÿ˜•

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