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.
I attach a network diagram of my setup to make it clearer.
This is what is weird, when I connect to the VPN from my phone on 4G (option 1 in the attached diagram), I don't get errors any errors just timeouts. I can access everything on the internal LAN and internet, except, I cannot login into certain webservices. When I enter my password and press login, it just stalls - the browser says it is "thinking / loading" and then nothing happens. After a long time I get a "Server not found" error in the browser.
However, when I am on my phone on the internal wifi over the VPN (option 2), then I click login and get redirected instantly to the dashboard of the webapp. I can also reach the webapp from outside my network as I have a reverse proxy (option 3), and this works fine.
The reason I want to set up the Mobile IPSec VPN is that I want to close down the reverse proxy I have set up so that I can only access my webservices over the VPN and not anymore expose them directly to the internet.
Hmm interesting. I don’t have any rules but the managed of the network I’ve named ‘external network’ can see my router. Is there a rule I can add to block them being able to access my network?
Seeing your network and accessing your network are two very different things. You say both in your reply post above. The default block/deny rules on every pfsense install for the WAN interface, like @johnpoz talks about above, keeps people/hosts from accessing your network.
You don't need to do it, but if you're really paranoid about that external network, you could set a specific block rule in your WAN interface to block/deny it's IP addresses. Again, you really don't need to do it, however.
This is an example of the default settings and wording from an old version of pfsense, but I think the current versions still look like this on the WAN interface: