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

    [SOLVED] 2.4.3 - /rc.filter_configure_sync: cannot define table bogonsv6

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Problems Installing or Upgrading pfSense Software
    52 Posts 22 Posters 20.0k 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.
    • cybrnookC
      cybrnook
      last edited by

      @jdeloach:

      @cybrnook:

      @jdeloach:

      @Bili_boy:

      The thing I don't understand is why it was 200K for you by default in the first place. I'm still on 2.3.4 and my default for "Firewall Maximum Table Entries" is 2M. (2 000 000). Did they reduce the default on purpose ?

      I've wondered the same thing.  I'm on 2.4.3 and the default for "Firewall Maximum Table Entries" is 2M (2,000,000) on my system.  I upgraded from 2.4.2 p1 but I don't remember what it was then and I don't remember ever changing it.  Not sure where all these people are getting that their system has 200K as default.

      what additional packages do you have installed?

      I only have the APC UPS Daemon package installed.  Everything else is just the default install.  I don't have any of the other packages like PfBlockerNG, Squid or Squidguard installed.

      interesting. My install was just a vanilla 2.4.3. as soon as the config wizard was done, the error was already there.

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

        Am I losing my mind?

        I just updated another 2.4.2 system to 2.4.3, but noticed the new default is 400,000 entries whereas this thread started because the default was 200,000 entries just yesterday.  "Ah, they did a minor point-release and updated the default" I reasoned.

        However, when I went to the machines that I'd manually overridden from 200,000 to 400,000 I noticed that their defaults had also changed, even though they have not been updated (i.e. via point-release).  Huh?  Aren't the defaults hard-coded into the release?

        What I've seen here would be more consistent with the defaults being periodically fetched from somewhere.    Is that true?

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

          I haven't looked at the code but I think there is a logic problem in that "the system default is X." I think it just says whatever the field is set to instead of actually computing what the default would actually be.

          For instance, I didn't see this overrun on bogonsv6 because mine was set to 2,000,000 by something/someone/probablyme. It said "the default on this system is 2,000,000"

          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
          • K
            karlfife
            last edited by

            LOL.

            By george you're right.  Looks like on my system, the "system default" looks a an awful lot like Pi, but I've overridden it to 400,000  ;)

            piStatesCapture.PNG
            piStatesCapture.PNG_thumb

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

              As a beginner, thank you very much for your explanation!
              I have set entries to 500K

              500k.JPG
              500k.JPG_thumb

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

                I'd like to thank you all as well for explaining this! Very helpful in resolving this issue.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  Smoothrunnings
                  last edited by

                  I guess the big question here is why?

                  Why do we need to increase the Firewall Maximum Table Entries from 200k (default) to 500k all of a sudden? I have been running pfSense a long time and have never had to make this change. So what changed all of a sudden?

                  It's great there is a solution but there isn't any real explanation as to why we have to change this value?

                  Thanks,

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

                    The size of the IPv6 bogons table in the April update changed and pushed some systems over the edge.

                    The default has been changed to 400000 in 2.4.4

                    The timing of the bogons table monthly update and the release of 2.4.3 was simply coincidental.

                    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
                    • A
                      AR15Dude
                      last edited by

                      I'm confirming that after I upgraded from 2.4.2_1 to 2.4.3, I had the same type of error:

                      Filter Reload
                      There were error(s) loading the rules: /tmp/rules.debug:19: cannot define table bogonsv6: Cannot allocate memory - The line in question reads [19]: table <bogonsv6> persist file "/etc/bogonsv6"
                      @ 2018-04-09 09:15:46

                      Changing the Firewall Maximum Table Entries from 200000 to 500000 and rebooting solved the problem.

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

                        Tricky situation

                        • if increase the maximum entries size from 200k to 400k, then rules modification and filters reload work without need of reboot

                        • BUT, then i lose all my bandwidth, coming from 140Mb/s to 1Mb/s

                        • if i use back 200k instead of 400k, then i have the bug back, but my bandwidth is back to 140mb/s !!!

                        What the hell is that issue ???

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • P
                          pl0ink
                          last edited by

                          I have the same problem, even increased to 4,000,000, it does not make the error go away.
                          Tried several values, increasing from default (listed as 200,000) to current 4,000,000 with reboots.

                          Only solution i have for now is to "uncheck" the allow IPv6 Traffic in the System / Advanced / Networking section.
                          No more errors.
                          So i guess the bogonsv6 data is not loaded now?

                          Have run PFSense for years without problems, 4 physical interfaces configured with about 10 VLANS, reasonable amount of rules, aliases etc.
                          Should i continue to increase the number and try?  4,000,000 already seems excessive.

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

                            Your experience does not mirror countless others.

                            Are you sure you are changing maximum table entries and not maximum states? They are completely different things.

                            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
                            • P
                              pl0ink
                              last edited by

                              yes, i'm sure, did not touch the default for Max Firewall States.

                              ![Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 02.32.01.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 02.32.01.png)
                              ![Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 02.32.01.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 02.32.01.png_thumb)

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

                                Zero reason for 4,000,000 there. Try 400000. Maybe you are really running out of RAM at 4,000,000.

                                It really is working for everyone but you.

                                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
                                • P
                                  pl0ink
                                  last edited by

                                  Well, solved it, but don't understand.

                                  Did at least 10 WebGUI reboots, system did really reboot, but kept having the problem.
                                  Finally did a complete system shutdown, removed power and restarted, problem is gone.

                                  After that I changed the 4,000,000 back to 400,000 as you suggested and it still works.
                                  (i had previously increased in increments 200K, 400K, 800K etc, did not change a thing)

                                  so, weird but solved, thanks for your help.  :)

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • CNLiberalC
                                    CNLiberal
                                    last edited by

                                    My buddy is having this exact same issue on a fresh 2.4.3 install on a Dell R210 II with E3-1320 v2.  He has the bogons error, and when we changed it to 400,000 the error went away, but his internet speed TANKED.  I'll tell him to leave it at 400,000 and to save and restart.  If that doesn't work, shutdown, pull power and pop it back in.  I have no idea why it would be different between the two options, except one is setting run level 6, the other run level 0.

                                    pfSense 2.7.2-RELEASE

                                    Dell R210 II
                                    Intel E3-1340 v2
                                    8GB RAM
                                    SSD ZFS Mirror
                                    Intel X520-DA2, RJ45 SFP+ (WAN) and 10Gb SFP+ DAC (LAN)
                                    1 x Cisco 3850 12XS-S (Core Switch)
                                    2 x Cisco 3750X PoE Gig Switch (Access Stack)
                                    3 x Cisco 2802i APs (Mobility Express)

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

                                      I suppose it's possible there is an issue with processing the tables if the table size is increased but I have not seen it. In any case a simple reboot should fix it. That is strange.

                                      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
                                      • CNLiberalC
                                        CNLiberal
                                        last edited by

                                        My buddy was able to change the Max Table Entries to 400k and rebooted. His slowness went away.  However, he still want receiving the same 250Mb down that he was getting on speedof.me.  We tried a different speed test site (Comcast's as that's his ISP) and he was receiving 400Mbps.  We confirmed this with the interfaces traffic graph on the dashboard.

                                        This seems like a bad bug. Netgate should think about issueing a p1 immediately to fix this issue along with new install media. My friend nearly gave up on pfSense. I convinced him otherwise, but for a complete newbie with no one to go to, this could be a deal breaker.

                                        pfSense 2.7.2-RELEASE

                                        Dell R210 II
                                        Intel E3-1340 v2
                                        8GB RAM
                                        SSD ZFS Mirror
                                        Intel X520-DA2, RJ45 SFP+ (WAN) and 10Gb SFP+ DAC (LAN)
                                        1 x Cisco 3850 12XS-S (Core Switch)
                                        2 x Cisco 3750X PoE Gig Switch (Access Stack)
                                        3 x Cisco 2802i APs (Mobility Express)

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • cybrnookC
                                          cybrnook
                                          last edited by

                                          It should be taken care of in the next release.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • CNLiberalC
                                            CNLiberal
                                            last edited by

                                            I understand that it should be, but it seems like a large bug if a fresh install kicks the error, but also causes very slow speeds.  A fresh install should just work.  Seems like a simple thing for Netgate to do. Not to mention it being the right thing to do.

                                            pfSense 2.7.2-RELEASE

                                            Dell R210 II
                                            Intel E3-1340 v2
                                            8GB RAM
                                            SSD ZFS Mirror
                                            Intel X520-DA2, RJ45 SFP+ (WAN) and 10Gb SFP+ DAC (LAN)
                                            1 x Cisco 3850 12XS-S (Core Switch)
                                            2 x Cisco 3750X PoE Gig Switch (Access Stack)
                                            3 x Cisco 2802i APs (Mobility Express)

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