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

    The curl command is not working correctly

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    33 Posts 3 Posters 1.6k 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

      The best option here is if the provider routes a subnet to you via some other IP address. Then you could just route that over the GRE correctly. However I think we discussed that and it's not an option?

      Otherwise I would bridge the connection using OpenVPN TAP at both ends. The you will have a single layer 2 between both sites and all public IPs can reach the ISP gateway directly.

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

        @stephenw10

        I have already configured OpenVPN in tap mode. Now I don't know what to do xD. On the LAN interface on the local pfsense side, can I put the ip address 185.113.141.1/24? I don't know if it will make sense.

        d84902eb-ac49-4e45-9942-9e6f92273b02-image.png

        Thanks

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

          I created a bridge between the WAN and OpenVPN on the remote side and a bridge between the LAN (I removed the LAN IP) and OpenVPN on the local side. Everything seems to be working perfectly.

          A big thank you for the help.

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

            Nice! Yup bridges are needed at both ends as you added. ๐Ÿ‘

            G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • G
              G_Costa @stephenw10
              last edited by

              @stephenw10 Hello! I did the same setup as @s_serra and for some reason with that config my network is pretty slow, i usually have 200 download and now went to 50, any idea why?

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

                How are you testing? From where? What WAN bandwidths do you have at each end of the tunnel?

                G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • G
                  G_Costa @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  @stephenw10 On each pf wan I allways have more than 500/500 and i executed an iperf of the vm behind the pf to the local pf and got around 3gbps

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

                    What latency do you have over the tunnel?

                    Try an iperf test between the two pfSense instances directly. Try to determine where the throttling is actually happening.

                    G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • G
                      G_Costa @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10
                      Iperf between both pf's without going through the tunnel:
                      444349cc-f0ff-4a17-a384-9453228cf439-image.png

                      Local Pf logs (This pf is on a vm inside the proxmox)
                      b4aaa5ec-66ae-4c31-9ca9-db7794defee0-image.png

                      SpeedTest on a VM with the tunnel working:
                      e7b69782-2fe2-4642-9369-e8d3a409ee13-image.png

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

                        Do you see the same results in both directions?

                        That's a lot of variation in the result, even outside the tunnel.

                        How much traffic is running through that local pfSense? How much RAM does it have?

                        You can increase the state table size in Sys > Adv > Firewall+NAT but exhausting it usually implies some very high use. You may need to reduce the state timeouts so the table is pruned more frequently.

                        G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • G
                          G_Costa @stephenw10
                          last edited by G_Costa

                          @stephenw10

                          There's the iperf of the other direction:
                          fb897e50-0c4e-437b-b4bc-04f341078fa2-image.png

                          The only traffic is from speedtest, im not running anything else and the pf has 8GB Ram and 8 Cores

                          Pflocal:
                          a0bdc2d5-bc7d-4f21-8582-ac82cfcbe034-image.png

                          Pfremote:
                          5276a307-c7d0-4d82-8989-37272dd82e84-image.png

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

                            Are those showing bits or bytes there?

                            How are you testing across the tunnel? Also with iperf?

                            G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • G
                              G_Costa @stephenw10
                              last edited by

                              @stephenw10 said in The curl command is not working correctly:

                              How are you testing across the tunnel? Also with iperf?

                              Reply

                              It's Bytes
                              71cf078c-6280-4b4d-9a82-53aa71fdfc34-image.png

                              0443c45f-02b5-4d1c-aa7c-4e3f5110fd28-image.png

                              89883e55-fcb8-4d4b-8eb9-5b5298b16fce-image.png

                              This is on the tunnel and the ips are:
                              10.0.8.1 -> OpenVPN remote Tunnel
                              10.0.8.2 -> OpenVPN local Tunnel

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

                                Hmm, how is the tunnel configured? Is it using UDP? There are a lot of retries there, it could be an MTU issue.

                                Sometime the openvpn interface does not behave as expected when used directly or services like that. Try using an internal IP as source if you can. Though in a bridge it shouldn't really matter.

                                G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • G
                                  G_Costa @stephenw10
                                  last edited by

                                  @stephenw10 Yes UDP, there's all the configurations:
                                  be6ed0e8-4f9a-48ad-b6d5-2a218efc2ec6-image.png

                                  --

                                  225cb46a-56cb-4133-acf7-37a5d2845305-image.png

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

                                    You should set AES-GCM and enable UDP Fast I/O for better performance there.

                                    However that isn't going to get you to the full rate there.

                                    You are seeing ~15ms across the tunnel?

                                    Did you bump the state table size?

                                    G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • G
                                      G_Costa @stephenw10
                                      last edited by

                                      @stephenw10
                                      4b602580-aa15-4f77-b5a2-cba6f5b8ca33-image.png
                                      759516ce-cc00-45a6-928d-055e7f3633f9-image.png
                                      0a0cbfce-9120-4d18-b212-644e2ffb015e-image.png

                                      Remote pf:
                                      remotepf.png

                                      Local pf:
                                      localpf.png

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

                                        Those images are too small to read I think. ๐Ÿ˜‰

                                        G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • G
                                          G_Costa @stephenw10
                                          last edited by G_Costa

                                          @stephenw10 Im trying to send them as image instead of attachment but they are too large, do you mind if i send them with imgur?
                                          https://imgur.com/a/7CqmzkO

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

                                            Mmm, OK so no significant difference to throughput. I assume neither side shows any CPU cores at 100%?

                                            I would try setting a lower MSS value and see if that makes any difference. If it does try to fins the actual tunnel MTU with some large pings.
                                            Packet fragmentation across the tunnel can cause significant throttling.

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