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

    2.5.1-RC port-forwarding not working on WAN2

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    23 Posts 13 Posters 8.8k 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
      ed-tech
      last edited by

      i have same issue with 2.5.1

      J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • J
        j.sejo1 @ed-tech
        last edited by

        @edmond https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/11805

        Pfsense - Bacula - NagiosZabbix - Zimbra - AlienVault
        Hardening Linux
        Telegram: @vtlbackupbacula
        http://www.smartitbc.com/en/contact.html

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • L
          lennok
          last edited by

          Glad I found this discussion after some digging.

          Same issue here. Why is this not listed in "known issues" yet!?
          Seems discovered more than a week ago already. How long is suggested we wait before updating then?

          This is very crucial to fix because we need NAT on all our WANS (7!). This is the real nightmare situation I always wanted to avoid again by moving to pfsense. At least this does not affect the built-in OpenVPNs.

          Rollback is currently impossible since nobody can access the device for the next weeks. I hope "urgent" means top priority here.

          J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J
            j.sejo1 @lennok
            last edited by

            @lennok said in 2.5.1-RC port-forwarding not working on WAN2:

            Glad I found this discussion after some digging.
            Same issue here. Why is this not listed in "known issues" yet!?
            Seems discovered more than a week ago already. How long is suggested we wait before updating then?
            This is very crucial to fix because we need NAT on all our WANS (7!). This is the real nightmare situation I always wanted to avoid again by moving to pfsense. At least this does not affect the built-in OpenVPNs.
            Rollback is currently impossible since nobody can access the device for the next weeks. I hope "urgent" means top priority here.

            Hopefully the answer is not: you have to pay for pfsense Plus +

            It is not being critical or pointing. But it is delicate because it is something of the essence of the FIRWEWALL.

            It's like an update fails the blocking rules and everything is ANY .... = (

            Pfsense - Bacula - NagiosZabbix - Zimbra - AlienVault
            Hardening Linux
            Telegram: @vtlbackupbacula
            http://www.smartitbc.com/en/contact.html

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • custC
              cust @jimp
              last edited by

              This post is deleted!
              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • X
                xparanoik @jimp
                last edited by

                @jimp does this bug currently exist on the upstream kernel?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • coldfire7C
                  coldfire7
                  last edited by

                  There is also another issue in 2.5.1.
                  If a rule is created with a specified gateway (not a failover or load-balanced gw) and that gateway goes down, data starts flowing through the default gateway. In 2.4.5 this wasn't the case.
                  If anyone is wondering Skip rules when gateway is down is unchecked.

                  Bob.DigB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • Bob.DigB
                    Bob.Dig LAYER 8 @coldfire7
                    last edited by

                    @coldfire7 No, that is and was the default behavior before.

                    coldfire7C 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • coldfire7C
                      coldfire7 @Bob.Dig
                      last edited by

                      @bob-dig but when I was using 2.4.5 if a GW went down I was getting timed out instead. :S

                      Bob.DigB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Bob.DigB
                        Bob.Dig LAYER 8 @coldfire7
                        last edited by

                        @coldfire7 I am sure about it, because I had to create a vpn killswitch for that, so... 😊

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