DNS resolution fails
I am new to pfSense, so please tolerate my ignorance. Here is my original setup: Cable Modem===WirelessRouter1 (DD-WRT)<–-Bridged--->WirelessRouter2 (Linksys Native) This worked flawlessly, but I had no ability to monitor network traffic. I decided to insert an old laptop with pfSense between the Modem and WirelessRouter1. I was successful in configuring everything so I can ping any Internet IP from a PC anywhere on the network, so I am pretty sure that is all good. However, DNS does not resolve any names. I have tried manually using Cox DNS1,2&3, as well as Google DNS on the machines, and in the DHCP server on WirelessRouter1. Also, I can get resolution in the pfSense diagnostics of any address, but WirelessRouter1 will not resolve. Logically the problem is between the WAN side of WirelessRouter1 and LAN side of pfSense.
Anything I am totally missing here? I thought if I had manually assigned the DNS servers in the network adapter of my PC, it would work, but no...
Thanks in advance!
Without knowing how you configured pfSense, it's impossible to answer that question. However, a simple test is to try to ping a DNS server, such as Google's. What happens if you ping 126.96.36.199?
Incidentally, using an old computer like that is not the best way to monitor a connection. What I did was buy a cheap managed switch and configured it so that port 1 mirrors 2. I then place the switch in between the devices, passing through port 2 and connect a computer running Wireshark into port 1.
I can ping any IP on the Internet from any device on the network, just no name resolution on the LAN side of the pfSense firewall. I only have 4 desktops, a laptop, tablet, and 2 iPhones using the connection. I use 2 wireless routers to cover the whole house and patio. The laptop is AMD 64-Bit 2 Ghz 4 GB ram.
Shouldn't the DNS resolution work, if I have them statically set on the PC or is it being blocked by pfSenses? I was going to investigate the DNS Resolver/Forwarder configuration. Thanks!
have you set up a rule in pfsense to allow outgoing dns-traffic (port 53 udp)?
i guess it gets blocked by the default-block-rule (you could enable logging of that rule and then check under status->system logs->firewall)
"i guess it gets blocked by the default-block-rule"
No the default lan rule is any any… If he had modified that sure that is common problem users pick tcp only, but that wouldn't explain being able to ping.
If this is a new interface and not the lan which defaults to any any then he would have to create the rules he wants to allow - if so then yup again common for new users to forget to allow for dns.
If he dns is working in the diagnostic screen of pfsense then you would guess that resolver is working - this is the default out of hte box configuration..
Simple test from client via dig or nslook should tell you want the client is using and what answer if any getting back.
I will check later when I am in front of the firewall.
Thanks for the help. DNS now resolves. Here is what I did…
Added Firewall Rule for LAN - Action: PASS - Interface: LAN - IPV4+6 - TCP/UDP - Source: Any Port: Any - Dest: Any Port Range 53-53
Turned on DNS Resolver - Listen All Interfaces - outgoing: All - System Domain Local Zone Type: Transparent - DNSSEC Enabled - DNS Query Forward: Enabled
On System>General Setup> DNS Server: Set 188.8.131.52 WAN(DHCP) and 184.108.40.206 WAN(DHCP)
That's the good news. I get resolution everywhere on the network.
Bad News: I can't bring up a web page. Guessing this means 80 is blocked. So I tried the setting a rule similar for 80 and 443. It just sits and spins. I will explore the other sections as this is probably not a topic for this area.
Dude so you dicked with the default rules? The default rules on lan are any any..
Post your lan rules!
The resolver is on out of the box with dnssec…
I only added a rule for port 53, suggested by Birke. Once I got the DNS resolving I figured I would pose my NAT/Firewall issue in another Section, more related to my issue. I do appreciate the help!
Here are my LAN rules, I disabled the port 53 rule as it wasn't necessary.
In order to test this setup safely, I have internalized the firewall. I have a single desktop connected to the LAN port of the pfsense box and my internal LAN connected to the WAN port. Is this acceptable for testing purposes? I figured if I get this correctly configured, I would be able to connect to the webpage of my current router.
What model of cablemodem?
Not one on this list is it? http://badmodems.com/Forum/app.php/badmodems
This is a common issue with systems behind these modems.
chpalmer, It is not on that list. It is a Cisco DPQ3212 (Cox.net)
I have a Hitron CGN3ACSMR, which is on that list. It works fine.
McFrisch- Sorry I think I was trying to answer another post
JKnott and anyone else wondering-
Anything with an Intel Puma chipset has one of the problems mentioned. The Puma 6 is the worst.
Try this test.. http://www.dslreports.com/tools/puma6
Try running this- https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm Let it run for a couple of minutes and look at the tabular data.
Puma 6 modems on older firmware will show less than 100% results. With my system I get 100% easily. I have Motorola MB8600 models all over the place. They are Broadcom chips and work flawlessly. Ive had a couple of the Puma 6 models in hand and they tested as low as 70%.
Puma 6 modems with newer firmware have fixed this particular issue but still have all the other issues mentioned on DSLreports and the badmodems site. http://badmodems.com/images/DOSABC.gif
http://badmodems.com/Fix.htm Make sure you read and understand the issue. If having these issues is acceptable to you then to each his own.
If you have one of these modems your fooling yourself if you think your not affected.
If you have a Puma 6 modem and are having DNS issues then you should look at the modem first.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31122204-SB6190-Puma6-TCP-UDP-Network-Latency-Issue-Discussion Just over 8000 replies.
Puma 6 Test
21ms : x
24ms : x
25ms : xx
27ms : xxx
28ms : xx
31ms : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx»
32ms : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
33ms : xxx
34ms : xxxx
35ms : x
36ms : xxxxx
37ms : xxxxxxxx
38ms : xxxxxxxxxxx
39ms : xxxxxxxxxxxxx
40ms : xxxxxxxx
41ms : xx
42ms : x
43ms : xxx
45ms : x
46ms : x
47ms : xxx
52ms : x
54ms : x
62ms : x
63ms : xxx
64ms : x
75ms : x
78ms : xx
79ms : xx
150 - 199ms :xx
250 - 299ms :x
350 - 399ms :x
I think that passes. I will try the other test and post results. Thanks!