Large packet sizes fail to send to internet
-
Hmm, that option should only apply to VPN traffic, things that are matched by those 'vpn_networks' rules. Do you have VPNs configured that could be over-matching?
Otherwise pfscrub would usually reassemble everything. You could also try disabling pfscrub and it would then pass fragments. But that also disables other things so I wouldn't do that permanently.
I wouldn't be concerned by memory usage when re-assembling packets. As I said that is the default.
-
@w0w said in Large packet sizes fail to send to internet:
@oggsct
Not sure, really, but since 2.7 is based on freebsd 14 then maybe this
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=276856Yes it seems that may be related but the reassembly setting for VPN seems suspect too since I wouldn't expect local networks in the vpn_networks variable of pf
-
@stephenw10 said in Large packet sizes fail to send to internet:
Hmm, that option should only apply to VPN traffic, things that are matched by those 'vpn_networks' rules. Do you have VPNs configured that could be over-matching?
Otherwise pfscrub would usually reassemble everything. You could also try disabling pfscrub and it would then pass fragments. But that also disables other things so I wouldn't do that permanently.
I wouldn't be concerned by memory usage when re-assembling packets. As I said that is the default.
I will go review the VPN configs but I don't believe they are overmatching. The pfsense in question utilizes a 10.X.Y.Z format such that X is the location (0 for this pfsense), Y is the vlan and Z is the device IP. With that said there is a 10.0.0.0/16 in that
vpn_networkswhich certainly covers all of the internal networks at this location, excluding a guest VLAN that is 192.168.20.0/24, which is the one that has worked t hroughout. They are all mostly policy-based IPSec with 2 route-based IPSec. I think what may be more suspect is the wireguard settings. Is there code that I can look at to see how pfSense is building thevpn_networksfor pf?UPDATE: I went through all IPSec configs and found a tunnel that is disabled for both P1 and P2 and the P2 policy had the local and remote reversed, which is what put the 10.0.0.0/16 into the
vpn_networks. Now what is still surprising is that a disabled policy is affecting the running configuration of pf. -
Hmm, now that does sounds familiar....
-
Hmm, can't find a bug for that now. However I can say it doesn't happen in 24.03 so it's fixed now.
-
@stephenw10 said in Large packet sizes fail to send to internet:
Hmm, can't find a bug for that now. However I can say it doesn't happen in 24.03 so it's fixed now.
I am not sure I can get to 24.03. I lost track of the policy for non-netgate hardware on pfSense plus. I also have the other open ticket I am chasing that may be tied to upgrades. I can possibly try to get to 23.09.1 but I would like to know I will have a future path on that codebase. I also don't see a way to download USB installs for that codebase. I already have an activation token for this pfsense but had issues last year trying to go to 23.x so I stayed where I was for the time being.
-
If you can see 23.0X available you would be able to reach 24.03-RC (or release by then hopefully).
-
@stephenw10 said in Large packet sizes fail to send to internet:
If you can see 23.0X available you would be able to reach 24.03-RC (or release by then hopefully).
Yes I can see it as an option. The concern lies in I have had to do re-installs from USB due to another bug I am still troubleshooting. Going to 23.0X doesn't seem to have a easy download for a USB recovery install. If that is still available, even by support request, I would simply keep that on hand so I know that I can recover at any time instead of going all the way back to 2.7.2 or similar.
-
You can use the new Net Installer to install Plus directly if the NDI is eligible.
-
@stephenw10 said in Large packet sizes fail to send to internet:
You can use the new Net Installer to install Plus directly if the NDI is eligible.
I had missed that post when it came out. That certainly resolves my concerns once it makes it out of beta. In the meantime it looks like things are stable again and we found the oddities that were causing issues. Thank you for your assistance.
