Other than an update of pfsense actual version, there should never be a reason to have to reboot pfsense.
Common issue where people believe this is the case in change in firewall rules, and not working as they think... This is most likely related to existing "state" for whatever trying your trying to change what happens with. And the reboot clears all this. But if you do have an existing state causing a rule not to function as you believe - you can either kill that specific state, kill all the states or just wait for them to time out on their own, etc.
@shaungehring This sounds similar to an arp cache issue we had. We could not connect, ping it, then all was good. The network team did something to the arp cache on a switch to resolve it. I do not have details as it was many years ago.
Maybe that will get you in the right direction.
Technically you could do it by running pfSense as a virtual machine in Windows using hyper-V or VBox etc. But pfSense is a complete operating system, it cannot run as an application on your desktop. It expects to be running on it's own dedicated hardware but running virtualised can also work.
What I ended up doing was sticking my PiHole IP address in an Alias as well and setting that as the Source alias. Not sure if that's the best way of doing it but it worked...
If your PiHole should answer IPv6 and work with IPv6 it needs an IPv6 address. Without that makes no sense, then you can simply block all IPv6 alltogether. If your Pi has IPv4 and IPv6 then that's the right way, put both into the alias and use it in rules.
That said I wouldn't work with invert rules but that's my approach.
on the SG-3100 I have determined that I did not have the switch ports assigned/enabled to any vlans and after that it gave me DHCP on the lan ports and vlans. however I am still with the issue of some devices getting IP's and some not, on the same laptop over Wi-Fi nothing wired something. My travel AP does not support vlans so it has to be on the base level. and none of my non-Mac computers seem to be getting DHCP. And I don't know what caused it but I managed to crash my old router and ALL INTERNETs last night plugging in the new one to do a test. I went out and bought 4 manageed switches so I could break out all of my VLANs to test, and it was the only ez way to solve ingesting my multiple travel WAN VLANS ( local lan, Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi hotspot, wired LTE modem).
That's using a Netburst Xeon right? It's not going to be fast. I don't have much to compare it with but waaay back when I was running a P4 2.8 it was good for ~300Mbps.
I would expect that pass 400Mbps using firewall and NAT only but maybe not much more.
have a lot of Apple iOS devices in company/home and need to quickly add rules to pfSence after You buy new appliance from Netgate;
company buy a software product that need to communicate with outside servers on a developer side;
company buy a new hardware (servers (like IBM IMM service, Dell/HP have similar) , email antivirus DPI inspector, etc...), that need to communicate with outside servers on a developer side;
Every appliance uses it own list of ports, that can be changed
It is better to check this information with the vendor
May be 5 or 7 years ago I was agree with You, because there are a huge bunch of SaaS services and the pool of IPs cannot able to be collected in reasonable timeslot.
BUT now in 2020 exist only 30-100 SaaS services that used by MOST OF USERS: Amazon AWS, Google ~Servises, Apple, 5 email services (Google, Yahoo, ...), and around 10 most-usable hardware vendors (Dlink, TPlink, Amazon devices, Google devices, ...)
Sorry, I need to repeat again:
The main question are the most users just need "push button and all working well" solution. Just look at this NetGate forum - more than 80% are about something described in official doc, or more than one time appear on forum. But same questions popup again and again, again and again, countless.
Even pinned on top of official pfBlockerNG part of this forum Bypassing DNSBL for specific IPs have words like CloudFlare. Rock... :)
And from point of view of ordinary users if something goes wrong, each user clime the "NetGate pfSense router" rather himself for not setup pfSense correctly. You may see on this forum even sysadmins of small organization are to lazy to correctly setup the pfBlockerNG-devel. This is reality of our life.
So at the bottom line are: if some solution exist on level "push button - and we do the rest" - more than 80% of users are happy with this. And buy more and more of pfSense devices, and recommend to others. NetGate are open source but not source of donation, this is "open source / business" balance.
And my proposition also about increase the power of this "open source / business" balance.
blocking using social networks (we all need that our stuff pay attention on work neither spent working hours on instagram, tinder, facebook, twitter...)
You can block it with the pfBlockerNG-devel / DNSBL Category
You can also find/add some specific DNSBL/IP lists there,
Most cloud providers have these lists,
Thank You for source! Appreciate Your attention and time!
When I run an iperf UDP Test that involves pfsense as router and a filter reload is done there is packet loss while the filter is reloading. This is especially annoying if an IPv6 Gateway goes down, the filter is reloaded and this affects the IPv4 Link aswell. If pfsense could selectively reload ipv6 only if an IPv6 Gateway goes down that would make things a lot easier.
This was not meant to be a "problem post" but rather a "couldn't we improve by splitting ipv4 and ipv6 rules in 2 anchors" though. My first idea was something that could be done in iptables but not pf: Have a list of rules we want and one with rules we have and issue the commands to make them match. The closest we could get to that is probably splitting up, comparing when we want to reload and only reload if last != current.
Sorry i should have mentioned, yeah my PC is on the 10.0.4.X network (just as a test PC) , the aim here was to loose connectivity to the GUI from my PC, then i have another one on the 10.0.7.X range that "should" get access to the GUI.
After thinking about this last night I think I have sussed it out, we are going through a Proxy and this is the IP Address that accesses the Management GUI, hopefully I should be able to add some rules in our other proxy to avoid this Firewall bypassing it.
Ill let you know if i have any more issues or if i need more help with this.