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

    ATT Internet AIr

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    290 Posts 5 Posters 53.1k 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.
    • A
      ahole4sure @stephenw10
      last edited by

      @stephenw10
      Yes it does show this when I reconnect the Frontier fiber modem -- I will have to try it again this PM to try to get the states again
      As far as ATT - wonder if @Gblenn is correct - I have been reading that ATT has some sort of DNS assist that could be hijacking my DNS queries -- not sure how to determine that.

      https://gist.github.com/CollinChaffin/24f6c9652efb3d6d5ef2f5502720ef00

      Image 12-19-24 at 10.04 AM.jpeg

      @Gblenn
      I will retest with IPv6 disableld tonight ! I see (after some ressearch) that ATT could be hijacking the DNS. I will look into this. Thanks

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

        Yes if they're redirecting DNS that would break the resolver.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • G
          Gblenn @ahole4sure
          last edited by Gblenn

          @ahole4sure Why can't ISP's just leave things alone... I'm assuming, since you run the modem(s) in passthrough mode, that it's not in the device that is being blocked, or is it?
          I'm thinking you need to log in to their portal (your accounts) to disable that "helper feature"...

          A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • A
            ahole4sure @Gblenn
            last edited by

            @Gblenn @stephenw10

            So am trying to leave things in situ as they have been setting and working (ie the ATT modems)
            They are supposoed to be accesible from my LAN (and they were right after I re setup my pfsense) - via 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.3.1 (set in the device as the configuration addresses)
            Through VIPs

            For some reason I can't access either of those VIPs any longer --

            I was trying to see if I could change the DNS settings we were discussing.

            I can ping both 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.3.1 but can't access via web browser

            Screenshot 2024-12-19 180100.png

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

              Do you have outbound NAT rules in place for those?

              A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • A
                ahole4sure @stephenw10
                last edited by

                @stephenw10

                Just auto
                But looks like it’s there ????IMG_0398.png IMG_0399.png

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

                  Well it looks like you have conflict with the 192.168.2.10 VIP. You have that subnet on an internal interface too it appears since it's included in the auto rules.

                  You should also have manual rules to translate to the VIPs for traffic from LAN to the modem.

                  A 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • A
                    ahole4sure @stephenw10
                    last edited by ahole4sure

                    @stephenw10

                    I think it is where I set up a static route trying to do what @Gblenn had suggested back in this thread previously

                    So the static route must have done the auto rule

                    Just so I don’t screw it up, after I have now deleted the static route, how should I set up the the outbound rule?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • A
                      ahole4sure @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10
                      So I got rid of the static route and then created the NAT rule ( ?? correct )

                      Still get the error trying to reach 192.168.2.1

                      Screenshot 2024-12-19 201542.png Screenshot 2024-12-19 201500.png Screenshot 2024-12-19 201442.png

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • A
                        ahole4sure @stephenw10
                        last edited by

                        @stephenw10

                        Correction == waited for a bit

                        This worked
                        ThanksScreenshot 2024-12-19 at 8.32.55 PM.png Screenshot 2024-12-19 at 8.33.09 PM.png

                        A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • A
                          ahole4sure @ahole4sure
                          last edited by

                          @stephenw10 @Gblenn

                          Will out seems that maybe disabling IPv6 might have fixed the problem with the frontier modem coming back online
                          After disabling. Came back online in seconds

                          There had been a support request sent to ATT about their DNS

                          After fixing NAT and being able to access the ATT modems config site - even after manually setting the DNS servers ( to non ATT servers) on fail over or attempt to utilize the ATT modem for internet access it just didn’t work unless DNS Forward Mode is checked in DNS Resolver

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

                            Nice. Yes those outbound NAT rules look correct now and no conflict is shown.

                            I would still try to capture the DNS traffic with the resolver enabled just to check it's actually trying to use the AT&T connection. A pcap filtered for port 53 would show that.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • G
                              Gblenn @ahole4sure
                              last edited by

                              @ahole4sure Ok great that it works as intended when IPv6 is disabled. I have now idea why this is an issue other than I'm guessing something is not initializing as it should on IPv6 so it gets stuck. Perhaps @stephenw10 has some idea as to why this is and how to make it work fully, also with IPv6.

                              And on the DNS issue, I hope ATT comes back with a resolution that allows you to chose resolver mode as well.

                              A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • A
                                ahole4sure @Gblenn
                                last edited by

                                @Gblenn @stephenw10

                                Thank you guys for your continued help and putting up with me.
                                @Gblenn - I know it is semantics , but I have Resolver enabled but just have to check to "use Forwarding Moding" on that resolver settings page --- not sure what the difference is ??

                                Also one other issue -- in my prior pfsense setup I was able to connect to 192.168.2.1 and 192.168.3.1 when connected remotely via my Wireguard VPN -- but now I cannot. Any addnl NAT settings for that to work? I have a Wireguard any rule in place and I have 192.168.2.0/24 and 192.168.3.0/24 as allowed IP's in my settings for my WG client

                                G 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • G
                                  Gblenn @ahole4sure
                                  last edited by

                                  @ahole4sure said in ATT Internet AIr:

                                  I know it is semantics , but I have Resolver enabled but just have to check to "use Forwarding Moding" on that resolver settings page --- not sure what the difference is ??

                                  In that mode, you are using unbound instead of dnsmasq but you target the same DNS servers you specified in the System / General. These are different from the Root or Authoritative servers used in resolver mode.

                                  So it's not that ATT are trying to force you to use their own DNS servers, only not use the top level one's (root and authoritative)...

                                  About your issue not being able to access those subnets over VPN... I guess you need to add your VPN to the Source of those rules for it to work. Now you only have LAN subnets?? Or rather create a copy of the rule where you specify the WG subnet...

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

                                    The AT&T router could be passing DNS servers via DHCP and if pfSense is set to use those it will work in forwarding mode if they are blocking all others.

                                    Look in the router config for anything named 'DNS helper' or similar.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • A
                                      ahole4sure @Gblenn
                                      last edited by

                                      @Gblenn @stephenw10

                                      I added addnl NAT rule for the WG -- initially uisng WG network as the source -- that did not work
                                      I changed the rule to have "any " as source and I was then able to access 192.168.2.1

                                      Is it bad to leave the source "any" as a NAT rule for that ?

                                      I would assume my WG network should be considered secure??

                                      Screenshot 2024-12-20 at 1.22.41 PM.png

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

                                        Usually having 'any' as source for outbound NAT rule is bad because it can over-match. But here it's limited by the destination which you're unlikely to use for anything except modem access.

                                        But the fact that works implies your client is not in the LAN subnet since it was not matching the other rule. So you should find out where hat client is actually connecting from and change the source from any to match just that source.

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

                                          @stephenw10 I guess the challenge here is that it's incoming from e.g. a phone or some roaming device using wireguard. And since it didn't work using the Wireguard network (from the dropdown I suppose) should it be the peer IP instead?

                                          As per the post above...

                                          @ahole4sure said in ATT Internet AIr:

                                          I added addnl NAT rule for the WG -- initially uisng WG network as the source -- that did not work
                                          I changed the rule to have "any " as source and I was then able to access 192.168.2.1

                                          A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • A
                                            ahole4sure @Gblenn
                                            last edited by

                                            @Gblenn @stephenw10

                                            Ok I changed to the connecting network and it worked -- I didn't have to do this before I trashed my pfsense setup

                                            Thanks

                                            Image 12-20-24 at 2.26 PM.jpeg

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