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

    Setting low TTL to fix Squid issue

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    23 Posts 4 Posters 3.0k 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.
    • M
      michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @michmoor
      last edited by

      But to my point about devices with hard coded dns servers

      Look at this. My IoT television gets its DHCP from my pfsenese. Pfsense hands its IP out as the DNS server yet as you can see from pfblocker its still requesting a google dns.
      Its hard coded in a lot of these devices which is an issue but dont think thats why squid breaks.

      300774ee-c795-47c6-b678-521e0f52bc5d-image.png

      343efe68-9721-4072-910a-411822704b8b-image.png

      Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
      Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
      Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
      Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
      JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

      JonathanLeeJ 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • JonathanLeeJ
        JonathanLee @michmoor
        last edited by

        @michmoor

        Try

        /usr/local/etc/squid/squid.conf
        Screenshot 2023-09-19 201027.jpg

        Make sure to upvote

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • JonathanLeeJ
          JonathanLee @michmoor
          last edited by

          @michmoor

          I wanted to check with you on Netflix, I forgot to mention I have Hulu and other streaming services set to no cache. Are you attempting to cache Netflix?

          I set them to never cache on Squid

          de20a524-8627-487e-afc7-abc2854f1122-image.png

          Did you set a NAT for the DNS rules to force all devices to use the firewall?

          That should help if you NAT it.

          Make sure to upvote

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • JonathanLeeJ
            JonathanLee @michmoor
            last edited by JonathanLee

            @michmoor Are you blocking port 53 for 8.8.8.8? it shows a red lock, it should only block port 443 for 8.8.8.8, 53 is the standard or if you use dns over tls ssl 853 that might be the issue, TheGreatWall_DoH is blocking standard port 53 over just the 443 DoH access.

            Create a NAT rule for all DNS requests that are not being sent to the firewall or it's loopback. And force it to go to the firewall.

            Make sure to upvote

            M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • NollipfSenseN
              NollipfSense
              last edited by

              Interesting conversation here, indeed...thanks for sharing!

              pfSense+ 23.09 Lenovo Thinkcentre M93P SFF Quadcore i7 dual Raid-ZFS 128GB-SSD 32GB-RAM PCI-Intel i350-t4 NIC, -Intel QAT 8950.
              pfSense+ 23.09 VM-Proxmox, Dell Precision Xeon-W2155 Nvme 500GB-ZFS 128GB-RAM PCIe-Intel i350-t4, Intel QAT-8950, P-cloud.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
              • M
                michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @JonathanLee
                last edited by

                @JonathanLee
                Im blocking 53 and 443
                The red lock in pfblocker should indicate that traffic is being blocked - sinkholed so dont think theres any worry about that.

                bb79dc10-6d56-43a9-96d5-bfe3fee06db6-image.png

                Floating Rule

                8d7a1bfc-c955-4df9-83ee-d8b7b27e4d2e-image.png

                So in my case theres no reason i can think of to use Port Forards.

                Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
                Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
                JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

                JonathanLeeJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • JonathanLeeJ
                  JonathanLee @michmoor
                  last edited by

                  @michmoor with pfBlocker don't you still need to redirect the clients that are ignoring the DNS settings still? That is interesting, I always have clients that will attempt to use a different DNS all the time with NAT it doesn't matter they go where I configured them too unless they use some new experimental protocol.

                  Make sure to upvote

                  M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • M
                    michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @JonathanLee
                    last edited by

                    @JonathanLee I will try adding a nat redirect just to test to see if it makes things better.

                    To your other question, i am not using Squid Proxy to cache anything.

                    7f3a6c1f-bc5a-4ab2-afa2-f2a3996eccb2-image.png

                    Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
                    Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                    Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                    Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
                    JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

                    JonathanLeeJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • JonathanLeeJ
                      JonathanLee @michmoor
                      last edited by

                      @michmoor I love the cache I have DSL/ copper it acts as an accelerator

                      Make sure to upvote

                      M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M
                        michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @JonathanLee
                        last edited by

                        @JonathanLee ahhh
                        Im on 500/500 Fiber.

                        Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
                        Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                        Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
                        Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
                        JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

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