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

    Unable to communicate with https://packages.pfsense.org.

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Problems Installing or Upgrading pfSense Software
    28 Posts 5 Posters 5.7k 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.
    • F
      ferthelet
      last edited by

      @stephenw10, thank you again but that seems pretty general, one thing in my network is that we don't have DMZ :-)

      @kejianshi, great you find it v6 easier than v4, I'm still grasping it

      I want to install squid (or squid3?) + squidgauard (or dansguard?) and I'm reading that these packages have problems with ipv6, is this right?

      A little context if you could use it for some advice…

      Our public ipv6 addresses are

      
      network 2800:160:17C5:0:0:0:0:0/48
      GW 2800:160:17C5:0:0:0:0:1
      
      

      My pfsense server info

      2.2-RELEASE (amd64) 
      built on Thu Jan 22 14:03:54 CST 2015 
      FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE-p4
      You are on the latest version.
      

      This server has 3 network i/f and 3 vlans

      cablenic WAN	 up	100baseTX <full-duplex> 190.8.65.21 2800:160:17c5::2
       cablenic intsi	         up	1000baseT <full-duplex> 192.168.32.253
       cablenic intsm	         up	1000baseT <full-duplex> 192.168.18.245
       cablenic VLANCER up	1000baseT <full-duplex> 172.28.255.254 2800:160:17c5::1:1 (here are 50% of network PCs)
       cablenic VLANTI	 up	1000baseT <full-duplex> 192.168.168.1
       cablenic VLANSEM up	1000baseT <full-duplex> 192.168.14.254 (here are 50% of network PCs)</full-duplex></full-duplex></full-duplex></full-duplex></full-duplex></full-duplex>
      

      Thank you again!!

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

        The best piece of advise I can give you is to start with a basic configuration and build it up testing at each stage. Don't try and do everything in one go.

        @ kejianshi: Hexadecimal limbs, why didn't I think of that.  ;)

        Steve

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • johnpozJ
          johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
          last edited by

          So what IPv6 are you using on the lan side if that is your public?

          inetnum:    2800:160::/32
          status:      allocated
          aut-num:    N/A
          owner:      Gtd Internet S.A.
          ownerid:    CL-GISA-LACNIC
          responsible: Manuel Suanez Berrios
          address:    Moneda, 920, Piso 11
          address:    6500712 - Santiago - RM
          country:    CL

          An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
          If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
          Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
          SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • F
            ferthelet
            last edited by

            @johnpoz, I had this previous config which might have changed as I was playing around…

            VLANCER, 2800:160:17c5::1:1 /52
            VLANSEM, 2800:160:17c5::1:2 /52 and so on...
            

            @stephenw10, you are correct, step-by-step, the only thing I want by now is to establish connection from my pfsense server to  my default public GW first then to the world using ipv6 address –no DNS at first :-)

            Our DNS servers would be

            2800:160::2
            2800:160::1
            

            Thanks for your kind replies!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • johnpozJ
              johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
              last edited by

              /52 ??  yeah that would not be correct..

              An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
              If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
              Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
              SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • K
                kejianshi
                last edited by

                Sleeping - Look at this when I wake.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • F
                  ferthelet
                  last edited by

                  @johnpoz /52 is not correct? I thought it could be subdivided in 16 networks with this… any suggestion?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • johnpozJ
                    johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                    last edited by

                    min size of ipv6 segment is suppose to be /64, you can get a /48 for example from say tunnel broker HE, they route that to you via your tunnel then you can break that up into as many /64 you want.

                    An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                    If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                    Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                    SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

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

                      But those VLANs have the same subnet, no?

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • K
                        kejianshi
                        last edited by

                        I have had great success with a /48 for WAN and handing out /64s on all interfaces, including openvpn interfaces.

                        I do want to experiment with something like a /52 on the WAN and handing out a limited number of /64s after. (tried before and failed)

                        Why?  Because some data centers for some odd reason are still hesitant to hand me a /48.  Maybe all they have is a /48 themselves?

                        I know thats a crap configuration, but it would solve problems for me also to get that to work.

                        I will soon have a chance to try that…  "soon" according to the data center.

                        However, as previously stated, if you want IPV6 now, getting a HE IPV6 tunnel works super well.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • F
                          ferthelet
                          last edited by

                          @stephenw10, yes, those VLANs had the same /52…

                          @kejianshi, I will better go with /64, so I will post here how it goes...

                          In any case my "problem" is pinging from pfsense to my default route (even though both ips answer from the Internet)...

                          
                          pfsense             <----> default GW 
                          2800:160:17c5::2/48 <----> 2800:160:17c5::1 /48
                          
                          

                          I don't know why but I'm still thinking the ipv4 way, I resist to waste so many addresses :-)

                          Thank you guys for following up…

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • K
                            kejianshi
                            last edited by

                            /64 on the wan is near useless.  You really want to be able to give each LAN/OPT interface a /64

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • F
                              ferthelet
                              last edited by

                              @kejianshi I'm sorry I wasn't clear… I want first to get this two addresses to communicate each other (pf <-> gw) using the /48 mask... only then I will change the /52 to /64 configs for my internal networks...

                              Any suggestion as to how troubleshoot this pf <-> gw issue? It's worth saying that this problem presents only for ipv6. It works fine in ipv4...

                              I'm folllowing this document, but I have done it twice for the WAN part and I still don't find anything  :-
                              https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Connectivity_Troubleshooting

                              Thank you again

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • F
                                ferthelet
                                last edited by

                                Just to let you know that I finally could establish comm between pf <-> gw . I'm almost sure it was a fw rule, but I touched so many little things… now I'm going to subnet using /64... Thank you all for your kind support.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • K
                                  kejianshi
                                  last edited by

                                  Its really difficult to help figure out IPV6 without seeing your settings.  For me anyway.  But I'm glad its working for you.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • F
                                    ferthelet
                                    last edited by

                                    Hello,

                                    Just to let you know that my IPv6 is working now, again it seemed to be a faulty firewall rule. Once the connection established between my "pfsense" <-> "default isp gw" everything else went fine.

                                    . public addresses 2800:160:17C5::/48
                                    . internal addresses 2800:160:17C5:1~4::/64

                                    Initially I messed up with dhchpv6, then manual ipv6, finally stateless :-) and it works all right!

                                    Again, thank you all for your great comments and support!

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