Endpoint-independent Outbound NAT (eimnat) rules
-
@Bob.Dig could you post a screenshot of how you configured your EIMNAT rule? Did you have Static Port checked? Seems like you're hitting the same bug I encountered before.
-
@luckman212 Yep, I had static port enabled too.
-
@Bob.Dig The crash can be uploaded here:
https://nc.netgate.com/nextcloud/s/FGaJJ3bHDTnTi5Q@luckman212 EIM may not be sufficient because as I understand it EIM only deals with the mapping. There is still the matter of allowing (e.g. inbound) connections through the filter which UPnP helps with. FWIW I didn't see the Switch 2 even try UPnP. With EIM (no port forwards, static port unchecked) it showed NAT Type B, without EIM it showed NAT Type D.
-
@marcosm said in Endpoint-independent Outbound NAT (eimnat) rules:
The crash can be uploaded here:
Done.
-
@Bob.Dig Thank you for being another person on the internet with this problem. I'm used to being the only one with weird edge case bugs.
-
@luckman212 I think you are one of the few early testers.
Besides this new NAT-feature, everything works fine so far.
-
@luckman212 @Bob.Dig If you can reproduce the issue on the RC, would you try again with the debug kernel? Hopefully that will contain additional useful info. See:
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/troubleshooting/debug-kernel.html -
@marcosm I just replicated the crash on the debug kernel and uploaded the dump to nextcloud. Hope it helps.
If this panic can't be fixed in kernel then at least Input Validation should block users from clicking both EIMNAT + Static Port...
-
That matches the crash we reproduced. It will be fixed in the release.
-
@marcosm That's good news. Glad you guys snagged this last minute!
