PIA using pfSense WireGuard Package
-
If your "last handshake" for the new WG tunnel says "never", the WG connection was not properly established. Until the little handshake icon shows up in green, there's something wrong in your set up
Yes, the endpoint can be an IP address
Interface creation: yes, this process is manual --> go to Interface/Assignments, create a new interface and associate it with the new WG tunnel (in my case it's called "tun_wg2 (tun_wg2)". In the interface configuration, select static IPv4 and on the IPv4 address field, enter the IP you saw in the pia.conf file under [interface]/Address: in my initial example earlier in the thread, this was 10.1.149.3
The gateway. What you did is correct, you took the IP from [Interface]/Address from pia.conf and used it there.
The whole problem in using PIA's WireGuard implementation is that every once in a while (a few weeks usually), the IP from [Interface]/Address changes, so you need to reconfigure both your gateway and interface manually. Its a big pain in the ass!
I'm thinking about switching this whole set up to not use pfSense's WireGuard VPN client. Instead, maybe I'll create a simple debian VM with the scripts from https://github.com/pia-foss/manual-connections and use this VM's internal IP address as a gateway in pfSense (so the VM becomes a router). I think at least with this set up, the WG client should auto manage the occasional change in the IP, and I can have some watchdog script in the VM reconnect if it detects the WG tunnel is no longer working for some reason. But this will take time, I'm not very familiar with linux scripting
-
@eidi thanks again dude.
I might hang up my gloves on this one.
Sounds like I'd fare better offloading wireguard to a 'router on a stick' with better WG support from PIA, similar to how you're doing it. -
@ctuchik In case you still want to do this, I found the permanent solution to the problem. Instead of trying to have pfSense's wireguard client establish the WireGuard connection to PIA, if you run pfSense in a virtualized environment like proxmox or ESXi, you can easily create a linux VM with two network interfaces whose only purpose in life is to establish the VPN session with PIA and serve as a gateway for pfSense. That way, PIA's scripts work out of the box in the way they're supposed to, and for pfSense your linux VM is just another WAN interface for practical effects. It was quite easy to create the linux vm, I used a distribution based on Debian called DietPi which is super slim and I give it less than 1GB of RAM, 2 virtual processors, and it can easily sustain 700mbps down and up with PIA's WireGuard connection active.
With this approach, even if stuff changes in PIA's side, their scripts handle the disconnect / reconnect in the correct way.
-
@eidi Nice one thanks.
I do have proxmox and strangely, I have also deployed dietpi a few times before haha!
Are you me? :)I don't know if I mentioned it, but my workaround was to make 4x openvpn clients, then make a gateway group.
I was aiming to use this as a patchwork to the lack of openvpn 3 threading, but it turns out it's increased my anonymity greatly by presenting a constantly shifting public presence. -
-
@eidi @ctuchik: I got the DietPi setup and have it connected to WG with PIA. I am only getting 400 mbps on a 1gbps line.
My questions is.-
I have 2 NIC where the WAN is connected to PFSense. So that means the DietPi are getting IP address from PFSense DHCP Server then connect to PIA not directly with WAN network but through PFSenses WAN.
If I create 2 NIC in ESXi for DietPi, 1 for LAN, 1 for WAN, won't it create a problem with 2 VMs getting each WAN IP? -
And how do I get my endpoints to point to DietPi?
-
-
@Bjur I personally didn't get very far with the WG box, though I have done it in the past.
You would set your default gateway via DHCP to ensure traffic goes through the WG connection.
You would make sure that the traffic out to the Internet from the WG box is directly out, if it's got to go via pfSense itself.I run my hypervisor behind the ISP's router, while that's probably super inefficient, it does mean I can make as many gateways as I please.
-
@ctuchik Thanks for the answer.
I'm not sure I follow.
When you set you default gateway, it's normally just an IP address like 192.168.1.1. What do you mean setting it via DHCP?You would make sure that the traffic out to the Internet from the WG box is directly out, if it's got to go via pfSense itself.
So in Esxi I should dedicate a WAN interface to DietPi and still have the WAN interface also on PfSense?
-
@Bjur So, I think maybe we misunderstand each other?
Are you asking me how you set the default gateway for hosts on your LAN?
Because if you are, that's typically allocated by the DHCP server (Services > DHCP Server > Other DHCP Options > Gateway)If you mean pfsense' gateway, I'm not sure exactly of your unique setup?
What most people do to route traffic to the right place is make a PASS firewall rule for traffic from a particular place (like the IP of the dietpi box maybe) and under advanced options, specify the gateway you want the traffic to take:
For what it's worth, I just gave up bothering with PIA - I've moved to mullvad because they have an excellent self-written guide on setting up wireguard with pfsense.
It's reasonably fast too, compared to openvpn - I'm getting about 5-10x the speed, which still isn't near my uplink max, but far superior still. -
https://www.wundertech.net/how-to-set-up-wireguard-on-pfsense/
https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/lmv1cp/how_to_setup_wireguard_on_pfsense_252102_with/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXFbEbzFEXw
https://www.paolotagliaferri.com/create-wireguard-vpn-tunnel-with-pfsense-2-5-0/
https://coygeek.com/docs/pfsense-wireguard/ - 404
These are the links I found most helpful.
This is what my setup looks using wireguard
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/181299/surfshark-guide-for-pfsense-wireguard/29?_=1730824716743 -
P Popolou referenced this topic