Test Request: UPnP Fix for Multiple Consoles playing the same game / static port outbound NAT

jimp

There are plenty of topics covering those questions already, this thread is only for testing this fix.

Firetop

This post is deleted!

vMAC

So I'm willing to upgrade to 2.5.0 image to test. My only concern is if I switch to the new image will I be able to get back to a stable version without having to wait for a new version? For instance can I go to 2.5.0 and then downgrade back to 2.4.5_1?

jimp

@vMAC said in Test Request: UPnP Fix for Multiple Consoles playing the same game / static port outbound NAT:

So I'm willing to upgrade to 2.5.0 image to test. My only concern is if I switch to the new image will I be able to get back to a stable version without having to wait for a new version? For instance can I go to 2.5.0 and then downgrade back to 2.4.5_1?

There is no downgrade procedure. Take a config backup first and keep an installer handy for 2.4.5-p1. If something goes wrong on 2.5.0, reinstall 2.4.5-p1 and restore the 2.4.x backup.

jimp

We have added the 2.2.0-RC1 version of miniupnpd to the repository for pfSense 2.5.0 and so it should be included in snapshots shortly, later today or tomorrow, for additional (and easier) testing.

andrew_r

I updated my 5100 from the web UI this morning (from the latest stable official release to the latest devel release.)

I can confirm that, with the correct NAT rules, I seem to be able to get multiple consoles online successfully using UPNP. My household has 3 switches, 2 XBox Ones and 2 PS4s, and I was able to get them all connected simultaneously with suitable NAT levels and no error reports.

I can provide more detailed information to @jimp if necessary.

I'll be doing some more testing later today to make sure I haven't missed anything, but so far so good.

Andrew

jimp

That's good news!

@andrew_r said in Test Request: UPnP Fix for Multiple Consoles playing the same game / static port outbound NAT:

with the correct NAT rules

Do you mean the correct NAT rules generated automatically by UPnP, or did you have manual rules setup for those consoles?

andrew_r

@jimp I had some manual rules set up from previous attempts, but they are fairly simple.

(1) Assign each console a static IP.
(2) Set up an firewall alias called UNPNP_NAT_GROUP containing those IPs.
(3) Set up an outbound NAT rule as follows:
Interface: WAN
Address Family: IPv4 (I don't use IPv6)
Protocol: any
Source: Network / UNPNP_NAT_GROUP / 32 <-- not sure the 32 is right.
Destination: Any
Static Port: Checked
Description: UNPNP NAT Static Port Rule

Anything not mentioned was left as default.

(4) UPNP Settings:
Enable UPnP & NAT-PMP: Checked
Allow UPnP Port Mapping: Checked
Allow NAT-PMP Port Mapping: Checked

External Interface: WAN
Interfaces: LAN

Log Packets: Checked.

I haven't played around with the default deny option, and I have "allow 1024-65535 x.x.x.0/24 1024-65535" in the ACL field (where x.x.x is my network), although I think it might not be necessary unless I enable default deny.

I'm not a firewall expert by any means, but this seems to do the trick. I'd appreciate it if you let me know if I've done something dumb here :)

Andrew

andrew_r

@jimp
By the way; I do get this on reboot:

Crash report begins.  Anonymous machine information:

amd64
12.1-STABLE
FreeBSD 12.1-STABLE 1626cb2f005(factory-devel-12) pfSense

Crash report details:

PHP Errors:
[11-Jun-2020 13:20:35 America/New_York] PHP Warning:  Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /etc/rc.dyndns.update on line 52



No FreeBSD crash data found.

jimp

@andrew_r said in Test Request: UPnP Fix for Multiple Consoles playing the same game / static port outbound NAT:

@jimp I had some manual rules set up from previous attempts, but they are fairly simple.

Can you try with those rules disabled?

Was that working before this version of UPnP?

We are primarily interested in knowing if this fixed situations that were broken before, or allows things to work with less intervention overall.

andrew_r

@jimp It was not working with the previous release. There were errors upnp errors in my log, and nothing showing in the upnp status area.

I'll test disabling the rules, and get back to you but, if it's any help, I forgot to add the second xbox to the alias group at first (so the rules weren't applied to it), and that xbox reported back that it was double-nat'ed. Similarly, I forgot with the 2nd PS4 and the third Switch, they reported NAT Type 3 (rather than 1) and Nat Type 3 (rather than 2).

Does this answer your question, or would it help for me to retest with the rules completely disabled? (I have hybrid mode set, by the way).

Andrew

andrew_r

@jimp PS. Is the boot error I posted something to be concerned with?

Marc05

@andrew_r
Please test without any Outbound rules enabled.

Also, do you have any games of the same console that previously had issues with joining a lobby or playing together? If so, are those working now?

andrew_r

@andrew_r said in Test Request: UPnP Fix for Multiple Consoles playing the same game / static port outbound NAT:

eans, but this seems to do the trick. I'd appreciate it if you let me know if I've done som

I tested Minecraft on both xboxes with and without the outbound nat rule enabled.

With; everything worked fine.
Without; the first xbox was able to connect to the realm fine, but the second hung on "loading resources" before it even got to the main menu for me to join the realm.

So, I'd say the outbound rule is necessary, at least as far as Xbox goes.

Note that each console (including PS4 and Switch) reports the NAT as strict and/or double-nat'ed without the rule.

Oh, I also had "Enable NAT Reflection for 1:1 NAT" and turned on and "Automatic create outbound NAT rules that direct traffic back out to the same subnet it originated from." in the system/advanced/nat and firewall menu, if that makes a difference.

Marc05

That's weird. In my tests, I did not have the outbound rules set up and it seemed to work.

andrew_r

@Marc05
That is strange.

Not sure what's going on, but for some reason in my configuration, I require the outbound rules.

It may be to do with the ATT fiber connection? I've set the ATT box to behave as passthrough directly to the 5100, but I'm not sure that's doing exactly what I hope it is (or else why would people use pfatt?). I suspect that's the cause of the double nat error, and possibly why you're seeing a different result to me.

I guess the question I have is, if you add the rule, does your configuration still work?

andrew_r

@Marc05 By the way, this was with xbox - I didn't have anywhere near as many issues with the PS4s and the Switches.

Marc05

Adding the rules still keeps it working.

vMAC

I upgrade pfSense and then found out my son took his PS4.......so i will have to wait to verify functionality tomorrow.

andrew_r

@Marc05 My guess is that they'll be necessary for XBox One. You only tested with PS4, correct?