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

    VLAN priority

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.4 Development Snapshots
    19 Posts 3 Posters 7.5k 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.
    • ?
      Guest
      last edited by

      @jimp

      attached the /tmp/rules.debug file from both 2.3 and 2.4

      Both look the same to me

      rules_2_4.txt
      rules_2_3.txt

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • jimpJ
        jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
        last edited by

        I don't see any rules in either one that would change the VLAN priority for traffic. It should have a "ieee8021q-setpcp" keyword on one of the rules.

        Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

        Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

        Do not Chat/PM for help!

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • ?
          Guest
          last edited by

          Your correct there is no such keyword in either file

          However at 2.3.3 the wireshark capture correctly shows the VLAN PRI set as 6
          At 2.4 it is failing to recognise the PRI setting

          Anywhere else I can check, dump ?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • ?
            Guest
            last edited by

            Sorry to resurrect this but its still an issue at 2.4

            @jimp should this go to the FreeBSD team ?

            I can raise it there if you think thats the best way

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • ?
              Guest
              last edited by

              Been doing a little more digging and it appears to be FreeBSD 11 changes over FreedBSD 10

              I had a play with the file etc/inc/filter.inc and used system patches to modified the rule

              pass out  quick on $WAN proto udp from any port = 546 to any port = 547 tracker 1000000563 label "allow dhcpv6 client out WAN"

              to

              pass out  quick on $WAN proto udp from any port = 546 to any port = 547 tracker 1000000563 label "allow dhcpv6 client out WAN" ieee8021q-setpcp ic

              this gets a syntax error because it appears form this patch https://reviews.freebsd.org/D6786 that the syntax is now

              pass out  quick on $WAN proto udp from any port = 546 to any port = 547 tracker 1000000563 label "allow dhcpv6 client out WAN" set prio 6

              I re-patched using that syntax the rule now is accepted. I then wireshark traced a dhcp6c solicit request over VLAN 832 which should have inserted the PRIO into the VLAN header. It did NOT

              Interestingly at pfSense 2.4 if I create a new firewall rule in the GUI and set "VLAN Prio Set" under the advanced settings the GUI builds a rule using the "ieee8021q-setpcp" syntax which of course generates a syntax error

              So I'm reaching the assumption that PfSense 2.4 is not working with 802.1Q correctly which would also explain why setting the PRIO of the VLAN using the GUI may also be failing.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • jimpJ
                jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                last edited by

                I've opened this for the syntax error: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/7744

                I also pushed a fix a few moments ago for that.

                I can't comment on whether or not setting the priority can/should work depending on the context though.

                If we're setting the pf syntax right, the rest of that code seems to be OK and should be doing the job. Something else in the IP stack could be changing it though.

                How are you checking the priority? You'd have to capture on the parent NIC and see what shows there.

                Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                Do not Chat/PM for help!

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • ?
                  Guest
                  last edited by

                  Thanks jimp

                  I'm checking the NIC by connecting my Mac to the WAN port of the pfsense box and simply running a wireshark capture. I see the pfsense box issue the dhcp6c solicit cmd on the correct VLAN but with priority 0 in the header.
                  At 2.3 the VLAN priority is being set cirrectly (6 in this case) at 2.4 its not

                  Anything else I can grab for you to review ?

                  I will try your patch shortly just in case

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • jimpJ
                    jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                    last edited by

                    No that should be fine, especially if it worked on 2.3.x

                    Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                    Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                    Do not Chat/PM for help!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • ?
                      Guest
                      last edited by

                      Thanks Jimp - I can confirm that patch fixes the syntax error issues

                      However the underlying issue with the VLAN Header and priority setting persists

                      I have a 2.3 and a 2.4 PF sense system

                      On both systems I created a VLAN 832 with Priority 6  (first attachment)

                      Ifconfig on both 2.3 and 2.4 shows the VLAN prio set as I would expect for the VLAN 832 (attachments 2 & 3 respectively)

                      However I wireshark trace of the dhcp6c request issued over the VLAN shows that at v2.3 the priority is set to 6 (attachment 4) as expected but 2.4 the PRI is 0 not 6 (attachment 5)

                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.12.12.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.12.12.png)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.12.12.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.12.12.png_thumb)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.08.20.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.08.20.png)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.08.20.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.08.20.png_thumb)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.13.20.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.13.20.png)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.13.20.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.13.20.png_thumb)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 22.59.08.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 22.59.08.png)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 22.59.08.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 22.59.08.png_thumb)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.14.01.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.14.01.png)
                      ![Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.14.01.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2017-08-01 at 23.14.01.png_thumb)

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • ?
                        Guest
                        last edited by

                        Crated a bug https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/7748

                        Hope that is the correct way to proceed

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • jimpJ
                          jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                          last edited by

                          Yeah that's the next step, thanks for taking the time to test and gather that detail.

                          The only other thing I might be curious to see is if that can be reproduced on stock FreeBSD. If it can, it may need reported upstream to the FreeBSD project.

                          Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                          Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                          Do not Chat/PM for help!

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • ?
                            Guest
                            last edited by

                            Ok I'll see if I can recreate something in native FreeBSD, although I'm not familiar with FreeBSD outside of pfSense

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