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

    PfSense 2.2 not passing traffic, but ping does get through

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Virtualization
    41 Posts 20 Posters 38.2k 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.
    • J
      jpsense42
      last edited by

      These (see attachment) are the LAN firewall rules. The WAN tab is empty.
      Text version:

      ID  Proto      Source  Port    Destination    Port    Gateway  Queue  Schedule        Description
          *          *      *      LAN Address    80      *        *                      Anti-Lockout Rule
          IPv4*      LAN net *      *              *      *        none                    Default allow LAN to any rule
          IPv6*      LAN net *      *              *      *        none                    Default allow LAN IPv6 to any rule

      Capture.PNG
      Capture.PNG_thumb

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • J
        jpsense42
        last edited by

        As for the firewall log, it's empty. It did contain IP6 related entries. I disabled IP6 on the client, cleared the log and tried connecting to the internet via pfSense again. Nothing appeared in the log.

        The system dashboard shows:
        2.2-RELEASE (i386)
        built on Thu Jan 22 14:04:25 CST 2015
        FreeBSD 10.1-RELEASE-p4
        Unable to check for updates.

        pfSense is unable to check for updates, although it can ping the world, resolve host names and it's connected to a router that allows full internet access - clients connected directly to the ISP router can connect to anything on the internet.

        I think: no TCP routing is happening here. Or it is happening, but no NAT is happening. The ISP router would not know what to do with non-NATted packets from the pfSense LAN side.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J
          jpsense42
          last edited by

          This is wat the NAT outbound rules look like. It's a fresh install, no changes.

          Capture.PNG
          Capture.PNG_thumb

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J
            jpsense42
            last edited by

            Packet captures below. I can't see what's wrong from this, at least not yet.

            Packet capture, LAN side.
            Client 192.168.0.196 is trying to access Google (216.58.219.78:80)
            pfSense LAN side is 192.168.0.252

            19:06:53.285513 IP 192.168.0.252.53 > 192.168.0.196.60003: UDP, length 76
19:06:54.714668 IP 192.168.0.196.51332 > 216.58.219.78.80: tcp 0
19:06:54.841045 IP 192.168.0.196.56142 > 192.168.0.252.53: UDP, length 37
19:06:54.845216 IP 192.168.0.252.53 > 192.168.0.196.56142: UDP, length 77
19:06:54.846406 IP 192.168.0.196.51338 > 216.58.219.78.443: tcp 0
19:06:54.951584 IP 192.168.0.196.51333 > 216.58.219.78.80: tcp 0
19:06:55.291665 IP 192.168.0.196.51336 > 216.58.219.78.443: tcp 0
19:06:55.455828 IP 192.168.0.196.51337 > 216.58.219.78.443: tcp 0
19:06:56.671783 IP 192.168.0.196.51334 > 62.69.175.109.80: tcp 0
19:06:56.809020 IP 192.168.0.196.52478 > 192.168.0.252.53: UDP, length 28
19:06:56.810237 IP 192.168.0.252.53 > 192.168.0.196.52478: UDP, length 44
19:06:56.811612 IP 192.168.0.196.51339 > 216.58.219.78.80: tcp 0
19:06:57.062611 IP 192.168.0.196.51340 > 216.58.219.78.80: tcp 0

            Same scenario, now WAN side. pfSense WAN is 192.168.7.252, ISP router is 192.168.7.254

            19:07:51.898694 IP 192.168.7.252.27180 > 205.251.192.57.53: UDP, length 44
19:07:52.198428 IP 205.251.192.57.53 > 192.168.7.252.27180: UDP, length 196
19:07:52.204635 IP 192.168.7.252.56383 > 108.160.165.189.443: tcp 0
19:07:52.210622 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 35773, length 44
19:07:52.211711 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 35773, length 44
19:07:53.220143 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 36029, length 44
19:07:53.220916 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 36029, length 44
19:07:53.748700 IP 192.168.7.252.9196 > 216.58.219.78.443: tcp 0
19:07:54.008374 IP 192.168.7.252.38630 > 216.58.219.78.443: tcp 0
19:07:54.228310 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 36285, length 44
19:07:54.229275 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 36285, length 44
19:07:55.201675 IP 192.168.7.252.56383 > 108.160.165.189.443: tcp 0
19:07:55.267333 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 36541, length 44
19:07:55.268015 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 36541, length 44
19:07:56.307582 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 36797, length 44
19:07:56.308639 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 36797, length 44
19:07:56.712085 IP 192.168.7.252.24188 > 108.160.169.188.80: tcp 0
19:07:57.039836 IP 192.168.7.252.25088 > 62.69.166.210.80: tcp 0
19:07:57.303517 IP 192.168.7.252.27234 > 216.239.32.10.53: UDP, length 39
19:07:57.307442 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 37053, length 44
19:07:57.308079 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 37053, length 44
19:07:57.388742 IP 216.239.32.10.53 > 192.168.7.252.27234: UDP, length 44
19:07:57.394470 IP 192.168.7.252.8493 > 216.58.219.78.80: tcp 0
19:07:57.646223 IP 192.168.7.252.49477 > 216.58.219.78.80: tcp 0
19:07:58.320115 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 37309, length 44
19:07:58.320916 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 37309, length 44
19:07:59.330378 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 37565, length 44
19:07:59.331114 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 37565, length 44
19:07:59.743873 IP 192.168.7.252.9196 > 216.58.219.78.443: tcp 0
19:08:00.003967 IP 192.168.7.252.38630 > 216.58.219.78.443: tcp 0
19:08:00.339999 IP 192.168.7.252 > 192.168.7.254: ICMP echo request, id 14886, seq 37821, length 44
19:08:00.340785 IP 192.168.7.254 > 192.168.7.252: ICMP echo reply, id 14886, seq 37821, length 44
19:08:00.393862 IP 192.168.7.252.8493 > 216.58.219.78.80: tcp 0
19:08:00.640923 IP 192.168.7.252.49477 > 216.58.219.78.80: tcp 0
19:08:00.647629 IP 192.168.7.252.33846 > 216.239.34.10.53: UDP, length 48
            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • C
              cmb
              last edited by

              Guessing some kind of checksum offloading problem. Which type of NICs are you using in KVM? Try disabling hardware checksum offloading under System>Advanced, Misc. Reboot afterwards to be on the safe side.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • J
                jpsense42
                last edited by

                I found the setting under System > Advanced > Networking.

                Disable hardware checksum offload
                Checking this option will disable hardware checksum offloading. Checksum offloading is broken in some hardware, particularly some Realtek cards. Rarely, drivers may have problems with checksum offloading and some specific NICs.

                I selected the checkbox and rebooted. No change. The pfSense VM can ping external hosts, but ssh from the pfSense console to an external ssh server does not work, clients cannot access the internet via pfSense.
                These are my KVM NIC settings (virtio). br0 is LAN on the host, br1 is WAN.

                 <interface type="bridge"><mac address="54:52:00:44:13:69"><source bridge="br0">
      <target dev="vnet4"><model type="virtio"><address type="pci" domain="0x0000" bus="0x00" slot="0x03" function="0x0">

    <interface type="bridge"><mac address="54:52:00:1d:48:7e"><source bridge="br1">
      <target dev="vnet5"><model type="virtio"><address type="pci" domain="0x0000" bus="0x00" slot="0x04" function="0x0">

</address></model></target></mac></interface> </address></model></target></mac></interface>
                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • B
                  Bullz3y3
                  last edited by

                  I had this same problem with ProxmoVE. pfSense installed as KVM with "VirtIO" emulator which is default for KVM. WAN bride with eth0 and go out. Local bridge for LAN side of pfSense.

                  Installed Windows & Ubuntu with VirtIO Driver. When Windows VM was set to go through pfSense I could ping but no internet no TCP/UDP connections at all. Same scenario. After bashing my head on the wall for whole sleepless night trying to resolve this. Finally I decided to setup XenServer instead of Proxmox which runs Xen hypervisor.

                  Implemented the same setup in XenServer with all default settings. Windows was installed with default Realtek NIC driver. Alverything worked perfectly fine.

                  When I installed xe-tools which turned Realtek NIC to "Xen Paravirtualized driver" it stopped work with same results as above. When I uninstalled xe-tools it worked again.

                  Conclusion
                  From this what I can see is Paravirtualzied drives are causing this issue in both setup. VirtIO in KVM & PV in Xen. With other NIC emulators like e1000 or Realtek it works fine.

                  I haven't found a solution to get this working with para drivers which will improve the performance.

                  J O M 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
                  • Y
                    yaplej
                    last edited by

                    I just ran into this issue too.  I have been beating my brain to figure out what the issue was.  Once I switched the vNICs to e1000 everything worked.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • T
                      tier3
                      last edited by

                      how to change vNICs to e1000 in xenserver 6.5

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M
                        mdima
                        last edited by

                        Hello,
                        I am running in the same problem just, it is not a Virtual Machine, just a normal HP server with 4 Intel NICs…

                        I already disabled the Hardware checksum offload, and disabled "fast IP forwarding", but on one of my server (the primary) after a reboot this happens... :S

                        Thanks,
                        Michele

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • R
                          RK57
                          last edited by

                          facing a similar issue since few days, have read almost every thread on this topic but couldn't make it work yet..!

                          My network setup is as follows

                          ISP modem to rl0 ie wan on pfsense , lan re0 to my switch box .

                          everything was fine until last two days suddenly pfsense stopped giving access to the internet,, tried almost everything known but no success,, finally reconfigured the pfsense NO SUCCESS still.

                          mine is a static IP connection ,
                          I am able to ping anything and everything from the pfsense ping host using ip address aswell as the host-names, However i am not able to ping through the client using HOST-NAMES only IP address works and thats what i think is the problem,,

                          ANY HELP would be heartily appreciated.. ! thanks in advance..

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • KOMK
                            KOM
                            last edited by

                            i am not able to ping through the client using HOST-NAMES only IP address works

                            Sounds like a DNS issue.  Check your client DNS settings and work up from there.  What is DNS for your network? pfSense?

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • R
                              RK57
                              last edited by

                              Thanks for the reply KOM.

                              my dns addresses are as follows : pref dns; 103.29.249.245
                                                                                alt dns :8.8.8.8

                              Also if i configure the same settings in my  DLINK DIR 600 ROUTER ie if i bypass the pfsense everything seems to work perfect. , my clients systems are on DHCP and refer to the pfsense LAN ip ie 192.168.0.1 as the gateway and the DNS server,

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • G
                                gjaltemba
                                last edited by

                                I had the same problem as described in op with Xen and pfSense. The first sticky post in this forum describes the problem and a workaround. In the end, I had to turn off just the checksum offload on my private network using ethtool.

                                IMPORTANT: Xen/KVM networking will not work on 2.2 using default hypervisor settings!
                                https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=88467.0

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • E
                                  EddDeDuck
                                  last edited by

                                  @Bullz3y3:

                                  I had this same problem with ProxmoVE. pfSense installed as KVM with "VirtIO" emulator which is default for KVM. WAN bride with eth0 and go out. Local bridge for LAN side of pfSense.

                                  Installed Windows & Ubuntu with VirtIO Driver. When Windows VM was set to go through pfSense I could ping but no internet no TCP/UDP connections at all. Same scenario. After bashing my head on the wall for whole sleepless night trying to resolve this. Finally I decided to setup XenServer instead of Proxmox which runs Xen hypervisor.

                                  Implemented the same setup in XenServer with all default settings. Windows was installed with default Realtek NIC driver. Alverything worked perfectly fine.

                                  When I installed xe-tools which turned Realtek NIC to "Xen Paravirtualized driver" it stopped work with same results as above. When I uninstalled xe-tools it worked again.

                                  Conclusion
                                  From this what I can see is Paravirtualzied drives are causing this issue in both setup. VirtIO in KVM & PV in Xen. With other NIC emulators like e1000 or Realtek it works fine.

                                  I haven't found a solution to get this working with para drivers which will improve the performance.

                                  I wanted to post here to first say a deep and heartfelt THANK YOU for posting this as I spent days trying to work out why all my Linux boxes didn't have internet but my Mac's and Windows machines did. After trying loads of tests and variations I found your thread which was the final clue :)

                                  For the record (and to help people searching with similar issues) I am running pfsense on a Virtualised installation on a QNAP server, it worked great apart from Linux VM's not having internet and the QNAP itself (if sharing a virtualised switch) also lacking internet. If you route the QNAP via a none virtualised ethernet socket then you aren't affected.

                                  Ping worked just fine. When I swapped to the Realtek ethernet emulator everything started working again.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • D
                                    DigitalDaz
                                    last edited by

                                    @Bullz3y3 Your advice on switching to e1000 is as good on the latest version of Proxmox and the latest version of pfsense as it was in 2015, this was driving me insane, thank you!

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • J
                                      johnny94 @Bullz3y3
                                      last edited by

                                      @bullz3y3 I can definitely confirm your suggestion to change the network adapter to e1000 for proxmox. Thanks!

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • DerelictD
                                        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                        last edited by

                                        I am having no problems putting traffic through modern pfSense installs on a modern proxmox VE installation using the virtio drivers.

                                        I, too, suffered from the issue with XenServer but there were fixes (using HV drivers or disabling the checksums in the VM).

                                        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                                        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • M
                                          macduke @Derelict
                                          last edited by

                                          @derelict could you please run iperf from pfsense to the host and copy&paste the output here? And maybe from a linux vm to the host?

                                          Many thx

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • DerelictD
                                            Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                            last edited by

                                            Full speed, but I only have 350/30 here.

                                            The problems on XenServer resulted in almost no throughput when using TCP, like single-digit kilobits-per-second. If you are seeing just lower-than-expected throughput then it's a completely separate issue and you should start a different thread.

                                            Don't performance-test by running iperf on the firewall. Test through the firewall.

                                            Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                            A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                            DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                            Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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