Does pfSense support SNTP

JKnott

Mine's 1.0.6.2. When I provide my NTP server (pfSense) host name, it resolves to the IPv4 address. The manual IP config only allows IPv4. I'll have to see about the update. Yes, it does use IPv6 for the management interface. It even has an IPv6 neighbours table.

johnpoz

@JKnott said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

Mine's 1.0.6.2

I don't even see that listed on the cisco site... got to be ancient...
edit: Oh I found it 27-Feb-2013, so 6 years old ;)
Did they even have any ipv6 in those old firmwares?

Yeah I would update... current for sg200 is 1.4.10.06, just recently came out... I have both my sg300 running it.

edit: Here I just added ipv6 to my sg300, bing bang zoom he syncing sntp with ntp running on pfsense via ipv6

He is going to use the pi on 3.32 since that is stratum 1, but wanted to point to pfsense ntp which is stratum 2.. But as you can see talking just fine to it.. And getting time.

JKnott

Is there some incantation to the network gods needed to update? I've downloaded the latest from April 29, and select the file, click on apply and nothing happens. The help(?) seems to imply a TFTP or HTTP server may be needed, but there's no way to enter a URL for HTTP. I guess I'll have to set up a TFTP server. It's been a while since I've done that.

JKnott

Wow, I can use XMODEM to upload a file!!!

JKnott

Got it going with TFTP. I'll soon be able to get my dog out for her walk.

Gertjan

@JKnott said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

Wow, I can use XMODEM to upload a file!!! .... TFTP .....

Nice ! You just made me think about a period, some 3 decades ago.
Back then, a Wellar solding station was as important as a keyboard.

johnpoz

So you don't have the gui eanbled? To update the firmware you can just use the gui.

JKnott

@johnpoz

I do have the GUI enabled, but that method doesn't work. It also doesn't support HTTPS or SCP. I'm slowing getting there. I've had to do 3 updates to get this far. Apparently, there are different file types for different versions. It you don't have the correct version to upload the next it will fail. You'd think they might have an upgrade path described somewhere. Right now I'm at 1.0.8.3 and when trying to update to 1.4.10.06 it fails with "Firmware Image download through TFTP failed." Those are the two versions listed on the update page I'm looking at now.

JKnott

I did some more digging and found 1.0.8.3 is the latest version for the 8 port model.

It does not support IPv6 for SNTP.

Gertjan

@JKnott said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

It does not support IPv6

Bring it back to the National Museum of Ancient Technologies. It was probably 'borrowed' from there anyway.

johnpoz

@JKnott said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

1.0.8.3 is the latest version for the 8 port model

Where do you see that?

Clearly showing on the download page the 1.4.10.6 for download..

You have the SG-200E ??

Gray1L

This post is deleted!

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

Where do you see that?

On one of the support forums. I saw that link with the 2 packages. 1.0.8.3 installs, 1.4.10.06 doesn't. Apparently the issue has to do with memory size and the fact that the package now includes the boot code. If you check the downloads, you'll see they have a different file type and my switch will not accept the new file type. I have the SG200-08.

johnpoz

@JKnott said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

SG200-08

Yeah I think that is E switch, because its not listed on the release notes for the 1.4.10.6 or even previous models..

That firmware is quite old
2014-09-29

When did you buy this switch? Can you return it? There are much better deals out there I am sure..

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

When did you buy this switch? Can you return it? There are much better deals out there I am sure..

I bought it yesterday. I got it at a consumer level store that's known for low prices, likely because the stock tends to be older.

johnpoz

Well if you want ipv6 and firmware that is not 5 years old.. You prob want to look for different model ;)

JKnott

@johnpoz

I'm not too worried about IPv6 vs IPv4 for SNTP. Even with pfSense, the NTP servers I use support IPv4 only. However, I bought it so that I would have a managed Gb switch and that's what it does. I have the same situation with my TP-Link access point. The management is IPv4 only, but it passes IPv6 as needed, other than the previously mentioned issue that prevents me from running a 2nd SSID.

johnpoz

@JKnott said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

he NTP servers I use support IPv4 only.

There are plenty of IPv6 ntp out there you could point too.. Shoot I have my pi stratum 1 ntp server in the pool via ipv6 and ipv4.. It sees plenty of ipv6 clients...

Your the whole IPv6 is the greatest thing since sliced bread guy around here - that you have hardware that doesn't support ipv6 pokes holes in your whole the ipv6 revolution is here, you ipv4 guys are behind the times... Must Use IPv6!!! ;)

JKnott

@johnpoz said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

@JKnott said in Does pfSense support SNTP:

he NTP servers I use support IPv4 only.

There are plenty of IPv6 ntp out there you could point too.. Shoot I have my pi stratum 1 ntp server in the pool via ipv6 and ipv4.. It sees plenty of ipv6 clients...

No doubt there are IPv6 servers. However, I've been using the same ones since long before I started with IPv6.

Your the whole IPv6 is the greatest thing since sliced bread guy around here - that you have hardware that doesn't support ipv6 pokes holes in your whole the ipv6 revolution is here, you ipv4 guys are behind the times... Must Use IPv6!!! ;)

I think you'll find I'm opposed to those who think IPv4 is all that's necessary, even though it hasn't been adequate, due to limited address space, for many years. Even Vint Cerf has said he never intended for 32 bit addresses to be inflicted on the public. It was only to be a concept demo. I am fully in favour of IPv6, as it brings some other advantages, beyond just increased address space. If it had sufficient address space, IPv4 would have been OK. I also not the type to toss functioning equipment, just because something better came along, unless I would get benefit from doing so. Thus my change to a Gb switch, as my Internet connection bandwidth was approaching 100 Mb. My AP is 2.4 GHz 802.11n as going beyond that wouldn't bring me much advantage, since my notebook computer is only 2.4 GHz n. Also, you're talking to a guy that used to use SNA, along with NetBIOS and IP on the same computer. I was also working with networks before Ethernet and IP were available, so I'm not afraid of old stuff.

As for NTP etc., I recently got into a discussion with a co-worker on a project we were working on. This project involved 2 GPS NTP servers (they weren't part of our work), located a few miles apart. He couldn't understand that multiple NTP servers should be peered, rather than main & fallback. There were other servers and the plan was to have the master on our project sync, not peer, with those on another network where there were two more. With 4 GPS NTP servers, they should have all been peered.

KOM

I must admit that I don't like IPv6 because I don't really understand it and all of its ramifications, and I've been getting by with IPv4 for decades.