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

    *RANT* Why pfsense is popular

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Off-Topic & Non-Support Discussion
    59 Posts 10 Posters 13.2k 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.
    • E
      edseitzinger Banned
      last edited by

      @johnpoz:

      What does http://us-looking-glass.battle.net/ show from realm your on to the your IP?

      Lets see a sniff of this problem.

      So put pfsense behind your GF device in a double nat.. Do you have the problem then vs replacement and the vlan tagging your doing..

      Lets see your looking glass traces with your GF and Pfsense and then your untangle - the one thing that would be most likely changing would be your IP.. Are you on the same netblock when you swap out devices.. Your routing could be completely different based upon network your on with google..

      if your saying untangle does not have the problem - lets see sniff on untangle wan with it working good, and then sniff on pfsense wan with it bad..

      I was going to try untangled but I can't set the priority bit so had to bypass that set of testing….

      Here is the Looking Glass out put and it doesn't look good....

      PING:
      PING MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP) 56(84) bytes of data.

      --- MYEXTIP ping statistics ---
      4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3001ms

      23/12/2017 15:25:10 UTC

      PING:
      PING MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP) 56(84) bytes of data.

      --- MYEXTIP ping statistics ---
      4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3002ms

      23/12/2017 15:25:10 UTC

      TRACEROUTE:
      traceroute to MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP), 15 hops max, 60 byte packets
      1  24.105.30.2 (24.105.30.2)  0.562 ms  1.036 ms  1.056 ms
      2  * * *
      3  137.221.66.2 (137.221.66.2)  1.382 ms  1.441 ms  1.505 ms
      4  137.221.68.66 (137.221.68.66)  1.315 ms  1.344 ms  1.387 ms
      5  137.221.68.32 (137.221.68.32)  0.838 ms  1.052 ms  1.066 ms
      6  * * *
      7  * * *
      8  * * *
      9  * * *
      10  * * *
      11  * * *
      12  * * *
      13  * * *
      14  * * *
      15  * * *

      23/12/2017 15:25:10 UTC

      TRACEROUTE:
      traceroute to MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP), 15 hops max, 60 byte packets
      1  24.105.30.2 (24.105.30.2)  1.408 ms  1.414 ms  1.429 ms
      2  * * *
      3  137.221.66.2 (137.221.66.2)  1.288 ms  1.345 ms  2.723 ms
      4  137.221.68.66 (137.221.68.66)  1.308 ms  1.331 ms  1.356 ms
      5  137.221.68.32 (137.221.68.32)  0.869 ms  0.906 ms  1.060 ms
      6  * * *
      7  * * *
      8  * * *
      9  * * *
      10  * * *
      11  * * *
      12  * * *
      13  * * *
      14  * * *
      15  * * *

      23/12/2017 15:25:10 UTC

      TRACEROUTE:
      traceroute to MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP), 15 hops max, 60 byte packets
      1  Blizzard (Blizzard)  0.739 ms  0.757 ms  0.803 ms
      2  * * *
      3  137.221.66.8 (137.221.66.8)  2.093 ms  2.147 ms  2.226 ms
      4  137.221.69.70 (137.221.69.70)  2.042 ms  2.064 ms  2.090 ms
      5  137.221.69.34 (137.221.69.34)  1.720 ms  1.810 ms  1.820 ms
      6  * * *
      7  * * *
      8  * * *
      9  192-119-18-202.mci.googlefiber.net (192.119.18.202)  31.579 ms  31.618 ms  31.682 ms
      10  192-119-18-184.mci.googlefiber.net (192.119.18.184)  32.038 ms  32.012 ms  32.041 ms
      11  ae7.ar02.mci102.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.69)  32.005 ms  31.962 ms  31.975 ms
      12  23-255-225-17.mci.googlefiber.net (23.255.225.17)  32.105 ms  32.099 ms  31.998 ms
      13  23-255-225-19.mci.googlefiber.net (23.255.225.19)  32.483 ms  32.531 ms  32.534 ms
      14  * * *
      15  * * *

      23/12/2017 15:25:15 UTC

      PING:
      PING MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP) 56(84) bytes of data.

      --- MYEXTIP ping statistics ---
      4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2998ms

      23/12/2017 15:25:16 UTC

      TRACEROUTE:
      traceroute to MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP), 15 hops max, 60 byte packets
      1  Blizzard (Blizzard)  0.953 ms  0.990 ms  1.068 ms
      2  * * *
      3  137.221.66.8 (137.221.66.8)  1.935 ms  2.028 ms  2.073 ms
      4  137.221.69.70 (137.221.69.70)  1.863 ms  1.971 ms  1.992 ms
      5  137.221.69.34 (137.221.69.34)  1.717 ms  1.729 ms  1.733 ms
      6  * * *
      7  * * *
      8  * * *
      9  192-119-18-202.mci.googlefiber.net (192.119.18.202)  31.793 ms  31.835 ms  31.935 ms
      10  192-119-18-184.mci.googlefiber.net (192.119.18.184)  33.210 ms  32.071 ms  32.099 ms
      11  ae7.ar02.mci102.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.69)  32.061 ms  31.990 ms  31.974 ms
      12  23-255-225-17.mci.googlefiber.net (23.255.225.17)  32.255 ms  32.265 ms  32.005 ms
      13  23-255-225-19.mci.googlefiber.net (23.255.225.19)  32.461 ms  32.673 ms  32.565 ms
      14  * * *
      15  * * *

      23/12/2017 15:25:20 UTC

      MTR:
      Start: Sat Dec 23 15:25:10 2017
      HOST: Blizzard Loss%  Snt  Last  Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
        1.|-- 24.105.30.2                0.0%    10    0.6  0.7  0.5  0.8  0.0
        2.|-- ???                        100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        3.|-- 137.221.66.2                0.0%    10    1.3  1.4  1.3  1.5  0.0
        4.|-- 137.221.68.66              0.0%    10    1.2  1.3  1.2  1.3  0.0
        5.|-- 137.221.68.32              0.0%    10    1.0  2.8  0.9  11.5  3.9
        6.|-- ???                        100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0

      23/12/2017 15:25:10 UTC

      MTR:
      Start: Sat Dec 23 15:25:10 2017
      HOST: Blizzard Loss%  Snt  Last  Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
        1.|-- 24.105.30.2                0.0%    10    0.6  0.7  0.5  1.3  0.0
        2.|-- ???                        100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        3.|-- 137.221.66.2                0.0%    10    1.4  1.3  1.2  1.4  0.0
        4.|-- 137.221.68.66              0.0%    10    1.1  1.3  1.1  1.4  0.0
        5.|-- 137.221.68.32              0.0%    10    1.0  4.5  1.0  35.6  10.9
        6.|-- ???                        100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0

      23/12/2017 15:25:10 UTC

      PING:
      PING MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP) 56(84) bytes of data.

      --- MYEXTIP ping statistics ---
      4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2999ms

      23/12/2017 15:25:21 UTC

      MTR:
      Start: Sat Dec 23 15:25:15 2017
      HOST: Blizzard        Loss%  Snt  Last  Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
        1.|-- Blizzard                      0.0%    10    2.4  2.7  0.5  7.9  2.8
        2.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        3.|-- 137.221.66.8                        0.0%    10    2.1  2.1  2.1  2.2  0.0
        4.|-- 137.221.69.70                      0.0%    10    2.0  2.6  1.9  7.2  1.5
        5.|-- 137.221.69.34                      0.0%    10  41.3  6.6  1.7  41.3  12.4
        6.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        7.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        8.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        9.|-- 192-119-18-202.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  31.5  31.6  31.5  31.7  0.0
      10.|-- 192-119-18-184.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.3  32.2  32.0  33.0  0.0
      11.|-- ae7.ar02.mci102.googlefiber.net    0.0%    10  32.0  32.1  32.0  32.1  0.0
      12.|-- 23-255-225-17.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.1  32.1  32.0  32.2  0.0
      13.|-- 23-255-225-19.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.6  32.5  32.5  32.6  0.0
      14.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0

      23/12/2017 15:25:15 UTC

      MTR:
      Start: Sat Dec 23 15:25:16 2017
      HOST: Blizzard        Loss%  Snt  Last  Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
        1.|-- Blizzard                      0.0%    10    0.8  0.6  0.6  0.8  0.0
        2.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        3.|-- 137.221.66.8                        0.0%    10    2.1  2.0  1.9  2.2  0.0
        4.|-- 137.221.69.70                      0.0%    10    1.9  2.6  1.9  7.5  1.7
        5.|-- 137.221.69.34                      0.0%    10    9.8  3.6  1.7  9.8  3.2
        6.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        7.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        8.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
        9.|-- 192-119-18-202.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  31.6  31.9  31.5  33.5  0.6
      10.|-- 192-119-18-184.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.2  32.5  32.1  33.9  0.5
      11.|-- ae7.ar02.mci102.googlefiber.net    0.0%    10  32.1  32.1  32.0  32.2  0.0
      12.|-- 23-255-225-17.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.1  32.1  32.1  32.2  0.0
      13.|-- 23-255-225-19.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.5  32.5  32.5  32.5  0.0
      14.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0

      23/12/2017 15:25:16 UTC

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

        So what is the perceived issue there?

        If you want your WAN port to respond to pings you have to enable a firewall rule on WAN passing ICMP source any dest WAN address.

        All unsolicited inbound traffic is blocked by default. Even pings.

        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)

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • E
          edseitzinger Banned
          last edited by

          @Derelict:

          So what is the perceived issue there?

          If you want your WAN port to respond to pings you have to enable a firewall rule on WAN passing ICMP source any dest WAN address.

          All unsolicited inbound traffic is blocked by default. Even pings.

          Ok I had forgotten about that…..

          Why do the first couple pings/tracert bottom out and the last few complete as normal????

          PING:
          PING MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP) 56(84) bytes of data.

          --- MYEXTIP ping statistics ---
          4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2999ms

          23/12/2017 20:06:53 UTC

          PING:
          PING MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP) 56(84) bytes of data.

          --- MYEXTIP ping statistics ---
          4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3000ms

          23/12/2017 20:06:53 UTC

          TRACEROUTE:
          traceroute to MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP), 15 hops max, 60 byte packets
          1  24.105.30.2 (24.105.30.2)  1.277 ms  1.879 ms  1.896 ms
          2  * * *
          3  137.221.66.2 (137.221.66.2)  1.372 ms  1.432 ms  1.502 ms
          4  137.221.68.66 (137.221.68.66)  1.236 ms  1.259 ms  1.288 ms
          5  137.221.68.32 (137.221.68.32)  0.955 ms  0.974 ms  0.978 ms
          6  * * *
          7  * * *
          8  * * *
          9  * * *
          10  * * *
          11  * * *
          12  * * *
          13  * * *
          14  * * *
          15  * * *

          23/12/2017 20:06:53 UTC

          TRACEROUTE:
          traceroute to MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP), 15 hops max, 60 byte packets
          1  24.105.30.2 (24.105.30.2)  1.390 ms  1.501 ms  1.520 ms
          2  * * *
          3  137.221.66.2 (137.221.66.2)  1.234 ms  1.299 ms  1.365 ms
          4  137.221.68.66 (137.221.68.66)  1.104 ms  1.200 ms  1.305 ms
          5  137.221.68.32 (137.221.68.32)  1.022 ms  1.049 ms  1.058 ms
          6  * * *
          7  * * *
          8  * * *
          9  * * *
          10  * * *
          11  * * *
          12  * * *
          13  * * *
          14  * * *
          15  * * *

          23/12/2017 20:06:53 UTC

          TRACEROUTE:
          traceroute to MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP), 15 hops max, 60 byte packets
          1  Blizzard (Blizzard)  0.535 ms  0.597 ms  0.706 ms
          2  * * *
          3  137.221.66.8 (137.221.66.8)  2.048 ms  2.163 ms  2.208 ms
          4  137.221.69.70 (137.221.69.70)  1.980 ms  2.014 ms  2.036 ms
          5  137.221.69.34 (137.221.69.34)  2.021 ms  2.028 ms  2.037 ms
          6  * * *
          7  * * *
          8  * * *
          9  192-119-18-202.mci.googlefiber.net (192.119.18.202)  31.584 ms  31.615 ms  31.620 ms
          10  192-119-18-186.mci.googlefiber.net (192.119.18.186)  32.917 ms  32.072 ms  32.102 ms
          11  ae7.ar02.mci102.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.69)  31.954 ms  31.887 ms  32.099 ms
          12  23-255-225-17.mci.googlefiber.net (23.255.225.17)  32.098 ms  32.108 ms  32.009 ms
          13  23-255-225-19.mci.googlefiber.net (23.255.225.19)  32.469 ms  32.482 ms  32.513 ms
          14  MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP)  33.482 ms  33.679 ms  33.665 ms

          23/12/2017 20:06:59 UTC

          PING:
          PING MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP) 56(84) bytes of data.
          64 bytes from MYEXTIP: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=33.5 ms
          64 bytes from MYEXTIP: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=33.6 ms
          64 bytes from MYEXTIP: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=33.5 ms
          64 bytes from MYEXTIP: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=33.6 ms

          --- MYEXTIP ping statistics ---
          4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3001ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 33.537/33.593/33.660/0.049 ms

          23/12/2017 20:06:59 UTC

          TRACEROUTE:
          traceroute to MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP), 15 hops max, 60 byte packets
          1  Blizzard (Blizzard)  0.746 ms  0.808 ms  0.930 ms
          2  * * *
          3  137.221.66.8 (137.221.66.8)  2.060 ms  2.141 ms  2.220 ms
          4  137.221.69.70 (137.221.69.70)  1.963 ms  1.989 ms  2.014 ms
          5  137.221.69.34 (137.221.69.34)  1.690 ms  2.297 ms  2.310 ms
          6  * * *
          7  * * *
          8  * * *
          9  192-119-18-202.mci.googlefiber.net (192.119.18.202)  31.505 ms  31.493 ms  31.482 ms
          10  192-119-18-186.mci.googlefiber.net (192.119.18.186)  32.280 ms  31.942 ms  31.965 ms
          11  ae7.ar02.mci102.googlefiber.net (192.119.17.69)  31.920 ms  31.906 ms  31.952 ms
          12  23-255-225-17.mci.googlefiber.net (23.255.225.17)  31.980 ms  31.952 ms  32.224 ms
          13  23-255-225-19.mci.googlefiber.net (23.255.225.19)  32.474 ms  32.494 ms  32.464 ms
          14  MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP)  33.655 ms  33.520 ms  33.520 ms

          23/12/2017 20:07:01 UTC

          PING:
          PING MYEXTIP (MYEXTIP) 56(84) bytes of data.
          64 bytes from MYEXTIP: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=33.5 ms
          64 bytes from MYEXTIP: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=33.6 ms
          64 bytes from MYEXTIP: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=33.5 ms
          64 bytes from MYEXTIP: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=33.7 ms

          --- MYEXTIP ping statistics ---
          4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 2998ms
          rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 33.519/33.611/33.713/0.081 ms

          23/12/2017 20:07:03 UTC

          MTR:
          Start: Sat Dec 23 20:06:53 2017
          HOST: Blizzard Loss%  Snt  Last  Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
            1.|-- 24.105.30.2                0.0%    10  10.1  1.8  0.4  10.1  3.0
            2.|-- ???                        100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            3.|-- 137.221.66.2                0.0%    10    1.2  1.3  1.1  1.4  0.0
            4.|-- 137.221.68.66              0.0%    10    1.4  1.3  1.2  1.4  0.0
            5.|-- 137.221.68.32              0.0%    10    1.0  4.9  0.9  29.9  9.4
            6.|-- ???                        100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0

          23/12/2017 20:06:53 UTC

          MTR:
          Start: Sat Dec 23 20:06:53 2017
          HOST: Blizzard Loss%  Snt  Last  Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
            1.|-- 24.105.30.2                0.0%    10    0.8  0.8  0.5  1.8  0.0
            2.|-- ???                        100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            3.|-- 137.221.66.2                0.0%    10    1.1  1.3  1.1  1.4  0.0
            4.|-- 137.221.68.66              0.0%    10    1.4  1.6  1.2  4.1  0.7
            5.|-- 137.221.68.32              0.0%    10    1.0  1.4  0.9  5.4  1.3
            6.|-- ???                        100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0

          23/12/2017 20:06:53 UTC

          MTR:
          Start: Sat Dec 23 20:06:59 2017
          HOST: Blizzard        Loss%  Snt  Last  Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
            1.|-- Blizzard                      0.0%    10    0.5  0.6  0.4  0.8  0.0
            2.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            3.|-- 137.221.66.8                        0.0%    10    2.0  2.0  1.9  2.2  0.0
            4.|-- 137.221.69.70                      0.0%    10    2.0  1.9  1.9  2.1  0.0
            5.|-- 137.221.69.34                      0.0%    10    1.7  2.9  1.7  12.8  3.4
            6.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            7.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            8.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            9.|-- 192-119-18-202.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  31.6  31.6  31.5  31.7  0.0
          10.|-- 192-119-18-186.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.1  32.1  31.9  32.7  0.0
          11.|-- ae7.ar02.mci102.googlefiber.net    0.0%    10  32.0  32.0  31.9  32.3  0.0
          12.|-- 23-255-225-17.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.0  32.1  32.0  32.2  0.0
          13.|-- 23-255-225-19.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.4  32.5  32.4  32.5  0.0
          14.|-- MYEXTIP                        0.0%    10  33.7  33.6  33.0  33.8  0.0

          23/12/2017 20:06:58 UTC

          MTR:
          Start: Sat Dec 23 20:07:00 2017
          HOST: Blizzard        Loss%  Snt  Last  Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
            1.|-- Blizzard                      0.0%    10    0.5  0.6  0.4  0.7  0.0
            2.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            3.|-- 137.221.66.8                        0.0%    10    2.1  2.1  2.0  2.2  0.0
            4.|-- 137.221.69.70                      0.0%    10    2.0  2.0  1.9  2.2  0.0
            5.|-- 137.221.69.34                      0.0%    10    1.9  1.8  1.7  2.0  0.0
            6.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            7.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            8.|-- ???                                100.0    10    0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
            9.|-- 192-119-18-202.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  31.6  31.6  31.5  31.6  0.0
          10.|-- 192-119-18-186.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.0  32.1  32.0  32.3  0.0
          11.|-- ae7.ar02.mci102.googlefiber.net    0.0%    10  32.0  32.0  32.0  32.1  0.0
          12.|-- 23-255-225-17.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.1  32.1  32.0  32.7  0.0
          13.|-- 23-255-225-19.mci.googlefiber.net  0.0%    10  32.5  32.5  32.4  32.5  0.0
          14.|-- MYEXTIP                        0.0%    10  33.8  33.6  33.5  33.8  0.0

          23/12/2017 20:07:00 UTC

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

            Because not every device will respond to traceroute.

            Probably more than you want to know about traceroute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute

            (I still don't see any issues there.)

            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)

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

              If you want pfsense to show up on a udp traceroute then you have to reject the UDP ports used….  But with Derelict here.. Sure doesn't look like any sort of problem..  30 something ms looks way lower than that 300-1500 you were stating..

              Where are you seeing these numbers... Post a screenshot of these numbers so user here that run wow can help you... I would be more than happy to fire up a trial to just test the latency numbers, etc.

              If I knew exactly how your seeing these numbers so I could try and duplicate them so we have apples to apples..  While not on google fiber.. I wish I am using pfsense and have been for really since it came out.. There is nothing that would cause such latency to be added.. Pfsense can not tell packet from your game from packet to websites, or a video packet or a voip packet - they are all just packets that is allows or doesn't allow, etc.  It sure doesn't say you know what - let me hold these for 300ms to piss of the game player..

              Do a simple sniff on lan and wan at same time via tcpdump - check delay pfsense adds to the packets.. its going to be in the micro seconds..

              Here did a simple ping to 8.8.8.8 from lan and sniff on lan and wan at same time.. You can see when my ping hit pfsense lan at 46.907733 and when it left wan at 46.907822 or 89 micro seconds later.. And then you see the answer come back to my host.. .923618 or 15.885 ms later which my ping shows that first ping was 16ms..

              The return packet latency was only 0.000035 from the time it hit pfsense wan, to when it was sent out lan to client.. that is 35 micro seconds…

              So let us see this sort of sniff with your game traffic going through pfsense and how much latency pfsense ads to this traffic..

              latencytest.png
              latencytest.png_thumb

              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 2.8, 24.11

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • H
                Harvy66
                last edited by

                I to was curious about forwarding latency. This is with NAT and HFSC+Codel

                timeout 5 tcpdump -i igb0 -n host 23.255.225.19
                timeout 5 tcpdump -i igb1 -n host 23.255.225.19

                igb1 12:13:22.078057 IP 192.168.1.2 > 23.255.225.19: ICMP echo request, id 33991, seq 1175, length 40
                igb0 12:13:22.078071 IP 192.168.101.2 > 23.255.225.19: ICMP echo request, id 25512, seq 1175, length 40 <– 14us

                igb0 12:13:22.121213 IP 23.255.225.19 > 192.168.101.2: ICMP echo reply, id 25512, seq 1175, length 40
                igb1 12:13:22.121226 IP 23.255.225.19 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 33991, seq 1175, length 40 <-- 13us

                When pinging the LAN interface

                HFSC enabled with shaping to 150Mb, my standard
                12:38:49.415947 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27900, seq 18212, length 40
                12:38:49.415956 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27900, seq 18212, length 40 <-- 9us
                12:38:49.415963 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27900, seq 18213, length 40
                12:38:49.415972 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27900, seq 18213, length 40 <-- 9us
                12:38:49.416269 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27900, seq 18214, length 40
                12:38:49.416280 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27900, seq 18214, length 40 <-- 11us
                12:38:49.416311 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27900, seq 18215, length 40
                12:38:49.416320 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27900, seq 18215, length 40 <-- 9us
                12:38:49.416322 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27900, seq 18216, length 40
                12:38:49.416332 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27900, seq 18216, length 40 <-- 10us
                12:38:49.416334 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27900, seq 18217, length 40
                12:38:49.416343 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27900, seq 18217, length 40 <-- 9us
                12:38:49.416368 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27900, seq 18218, length 40

                No shaping enabled on LAN
                12:46:40.253820 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27897, seq 34858, length 40
                12:46:40.253827 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27897, seq 34858, length 40 <-- 7us
                12:46:40.253844 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27897, seq 34859, length 40
                12:46:40.253851 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27897, seq 34859, length 40 <-- 7us
                12:46:40.253852 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27897, seq 34860, length 40
                12:46:40.253859 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27897, seq 34860, length 40 <-- 7us
                12:46:40.254158 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27897, seq 34861, length 40
                12:46:40.254165 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27897, seq 34861, length 40 <-- 7us
                12:46:40.254170 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27897, seq 34862, length 40
                12:46:40.254177 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27897, seq 34862, length 40 <-- 7us
                12:46:40.254182 IP 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 27897, seq 34863, length 40
                12:46:40.254189 IP 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: ICMP echo reply, id 27897, seq 34863, length 40 <-- 7us

                I should mention that my HP-1810-24G claims 2.3us forwarding latency, so this is within the range of my switch.

                P.S. Before you criticize my version number: Uptime 220 Days 16 Hours 11 Minutes 52 Seconds

                igb0.PNG
                igb0.PNG_thumb
                igb1.PNG
                igb1.PNG_thumb

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

                  PEBCAK?

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

                    Just waiting to see OP show us these 300+ms delay Pfsense is adding to the packets as it sends them on..

                    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 2.8, 24.11

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • E
                      edseitzinger Banned
                      last edited by

                      @johnpoz:

                      If you want pfsense to show up on a udp traceroute then you have to reject the UDP ports used….  But with Derelict here.. Sure doesn't look like any sort of problem..  30 something ms looks way lower than that 300-1500 you were stating..

                      Where are you seeing these numbers... Post a screenshot of these numbers so user here that run wow can help you... I would be more than happy to fire up a trial to just test the latency numbers, etc.

                      If I knew exactly how your seeing these numbers so I could try and duplicate them so we have apples to apples..  While not on google fiber.. I wish I am using pfsense and have been for really since it came out.. There is nothing that would cause such latency to be added.. Pfsense can not tell packet from your game from packet to websites, or a video packet or a voip packet - they are all just packets that is allows or doesn't allow, etc.  It sure doesn't say you know what - let me hold these for 300ms to piss of the game player..

                      Do a simple sniff on lan and wan at same time via tcpdump - check delay pfsense adds to the packets.. its going to be in the micro seconds..

                      Here did a simple ping to 8.8.8.8 from lan and sniff on lan and wan at same time.. You can see when my ping hit pfsense lan at 46.907733 and when it left wan at 46.907822 or 89 micro seconds later.. And then you see the answer come back to my host.. .923618 or 15.885 ms later which my ping shows that first ping was 16ms..

                      The return packet latency was only 0.000035 from the time it hit pfsense wan, to when it was sent out lan to client.. that is 35 micro seconds…

                      So let us see this sort of sniff with your game traffic going through pfsense and how much latency pfsense ads to this traffic..

                      And this might be an issue with Gfiber that you might not see, but the Latency I see is in World Of Warcraft….. https://us.battle.net/account/download/ I know you can play for free up to like level 20 but there is an in game latency tracker (ie network status) and for the record currently I'm sitting at 78 ms and I am good with that, but It may change over night for no particular reason.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • E
                        edseitzinger Banned
                        last edited by

                        Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
                        Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
                        Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55
                        Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=55
                        Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=55

                        Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
                            Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
                        Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
                            Minimum = 12ms, Maximum = 13ms, Average = 12ms

                        [2.4.2-RELEASE][root@AMDRouter.localdomain]/root: tcpdump -i igb1 -n host 8.8.8.8
                        16:22:38.256111 IP 192.168.1.121 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 655, length 40
                        16:22:38.268953 IP 8.8.8.8 > 192.168.1.121: ICMP echo reply, id 1, seq 655, length 40
                        16:22:39.257887 IP 192.168.1.121 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 656, length 40
                        16:22:39.270690 IP 8.8.8.8 > 192.168.1.121: ICMP echo reply, id 1, seq 656, length 40
                        16:22:40.259797 IP 192.168.1.121 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 657, length 40
                        16:22:40.272697 IP 8.8.8.8 > 192.168.1.121: ICMP echo reply, id 1, seq 657, length 40
                        16:22:41.261709 IP 192.168.1.121 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 658, length 40
                        16:22:41.274687 IP 8.8.8.8 > 192.168.1.121: ICMP echo reply, id 1, seq 658, length 40

                        [2.4.2-RELEASE][root@AMDRouter.localdomain]/root: tcpdump -i igb0.2 -n host 8.8.8.8
                        tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
                        listening on igb0.2, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes
                        16:25:37.069105 IP 136.56.55.36 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 54453, seq 668, length 64
                        16:25:37.069432 IP 136.56.55.36 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 15638, seq 600, length 64
                        16:25:37.081751 IP 8.8.8.8 > 136.56.55.36: ICMP echo reply, id 54453, seq 668, length 64
                        16:25:37.081807 IP 8.8.8.8 > 136.56.55.36: ICMP echo reply, id 15638, seq 600, length 64
                        16:25:38.070788 IP 136.56.55.36 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 54453, seq 669, length 64
                        16:25:38.070805 IP 136.56.55.36 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 15638, seq 601, length 64
                        16:25:38.083629 IP 8.8.8.8 > 136.56.55.36: ICMP echo reply, id 54453, seq 669, length 64
                        16:25:38.083710 IP 8.8.8.8 > 136.56.55.36: ICMP echo reply, id 15638, seq 601, length 64
                        16:25:39.079806 IP 136.56.55.36 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 15638, seq 602, length 64
                        16:25:39.087694 IP 136.56.55.36 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 54453, seq 670, length 64
                        16:25:39.092626 IP 8.8.8.8 > 136.56.55.36: ICMP echo reply, id 15638, seq 602, length 64
                        16:25:39.100392 IP 8.8.8.8 > 136.56.55.36: ICMP echo reply, id 54453, seq 670, length 64
                        16:25:40.094898 IP 136.56.55.36 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 15638, seq 603, length 64
                        16:25:40.103248 IP 136.56.55.36 > 8.8.8.8: ICMP echo request, id 54453, seq 671, length 64
                        16:25:40.107628 IP 8.8.8.8 > 136.56.55.36: ICMP echo reply, id 15638, seq 603, length 64
                        16:25:40.116073 IP 8.8.8.8 > 136.56.55.36: ICMP echo reply, id 54453, seq 671, length 64

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

                          And?

                          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)

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • E
                            edseitzinger Banned
                            last edited by

                            Now I did some more lloking and some people are putting an Ubiquiti Edge router off the fiber jack then using a switch behind that and here is a bit of code you have to update the POE version with to work with GFiber.

                            https://github.com/stevejenkins/UBNT-EdgeRouter-Example-Configs/blob/master/Google-Fiber/config.boot.poe

                            I did look through the code and while I can read it and it is logical in that it has rules being set up for the various ports, not sure I would be able to translate it into pfsense.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • E
                              edseitzinger Banned
                              last edited by

                              @Derelict:

                              And?

                              And there in lies the the issue, I know all the network traffic looks normal, I get it. And currently in games and my latency is sitting at 78 ms which is right where is should be. This is the maddening part. Hence why this started out as a RANT, I needed to scream into the ether and figure why this was happening.

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

                                https://flyovercountry.org/2014/02/google-fiber-gigabit-speeds-your-router-part-1-vlans/

                                Looks like those guys have done most of your research for you.

                                pfSense can NOT set DSCP bits. It can only match on them. You will likely need to do that in a switch between your fiber and the WAN interface as outlined in that blog.

                                Your RANT against pfSense is misplaced.

                                ETA:

                                You might be able to get closer tagging VLAN 2 with VLAN Priority 3 set. https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=71806.msg619859#msg619859

                                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)

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • E
                                  edseitzinger Banned
                                  last edited by

                                  @Derelict:

                                  https://flyovercountry.org/2014/02/google-fiber-gigabit-speeds-your-router-part-1-vlans/

                                  Looks like those guys have done most of your research for you.

                                  pfSense can NOT set DSCP bits. It can only match on them. You will likely need to do that in a switch between your fiber and the WAN interface as outlined in that blog.

                                  Your RANT against pfSense is misplaced.

                                  ETA:

                                  You might be able to get closer tagging VLAN 2 with VLAN Priority 3 set. https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=71806.msg619859#msg619859

                                  Which btw is exactly how I have it set up. I might be a pfsense newb,  just not networking technology hardware know just a little bit what i'm talking about newb. Which is why I had explained before that my speed test were normal, sinse with out the VLAN 2 and the VLAN 802.1p bit set to 3, i would get exactly ZILCH.

                                  RANT still firmly in place.

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

                                    Must be you. And your RANT would be better directed at google fiber - you know, the entity you are actually PAYING - for demanding you use their device with zero documentation regarding using others.

                                    Merry Christmas.

                                    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)

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

                                      So are you saying you don't have the switch in front of pfsense like the article Derelict linked to setting the dscp?

                                      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 2.8, 24.11

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • P
                                        pfSense4ME
                                        last edited by

                                        Merry Christmas!

                                        First, some of this is over my head… but...

                                        Please don't forget - did OP ever provide the sniff of where pfSense injects the additional 300ms packets as requested by Johnpoz (post #27)?  Why not?

                                        Derelict IMHO is correct, you need to direct your RANT elsewhere and away form pfSense.  You won't as you think it's a pfSense issue.  It's not.  What about the "other firewall/router x64 solutions", did you RANT at them like you have at pfSense?  So far you've indicated the issues are with GFiber and/or the switch you currently have in place.

                                        OP - I think it could have greatly help everyone trying to help you if you indicated your setting of DSCP bits in your original post rather than waiting until post #34.  Why now vs the very beginning?

                                        If you want to rant/bitch/complain/whatever, great, but do it with all facts presented vs presenting half facts (waiting until #34 to state DSCP setting).

                                        If you want to flame me - do it, I don't care and won't care for the following reasons:

                                        1. Until you honor Johnpoz's request for info requested in post 27 request. If you ever do.
                                        2. You are now a moving target.  The people trying to help you make request, maybe you provide info, maybe not.  The when VERY convenient to you, you inform everyone this is how I have it set up - post #34.  Where was that detail prior?
                                        3. Did you get on ALL the other boards for the "other firewall/router x64 solutions" (post #1) indicating your RANT with them for the same reasons you gave about pfSense?  Again, where was that ever mentioned?
                                        4. Most of my questions are rhetorical as if you truly wanted to help yourself you would have provided info to get to a resolution rather than wait to cherry pick responses or provide (additional) info.
                                        5. Accept the blame yourself as it falls squarely on your shoulders.

                                        Personally, I can't take you seriously until ALL the information requested of you IS provided by you.  Now just to be sure, don't forget to add the part about - no need now as you have resolved the problem OR how you believe pfSense just doesn't measure up blah blah blah, as now it's convenient time to do so.

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

                                          He seem to attempt to show the latency of pfsense pinging 8.8.8.8 but he did not run the sniffs at the same time, and it seems he has something else pinging 8.8.8.8 as well… But his sniffs the time nor the seq numbers clearly show they were not sniffed at the same time... So from those its not even possible to calc what latency is being added by pfsense for the routing and natting and evaluation of the firewall rules.

                                          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 2.8, 24.11

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • E
                                            edseitzinger Banned
                                            last edited by

                                            @Derelict:

                                            Must be you. And your RANT would be better directed at google fiber - you know, the entity you are actually PAYING - for demanding you use their device with zero documentation regarding using others.

                                            Merry Christmas.

                                            Never ever did I say I might not be them, I just hadn't gotten to calling local cable company and signing up for a month and remove that possible variable.

                                            Merry Christmas

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