NAT Type 3 on PS4 - I've tried everything I can think of

cyanic

Just to point in a different direction - I had a similar issue and couldn't find a fix for it. In the end it was the switch and the setting of the "IGMP Snooping" that don't let me get the nat type. Maybe have a look at it.

I had the same issue. UPnP uses multicast and since pfsense does not appear to IGMP join the UPnP channel the switch will block all UPnP requests to it. Turn off IGMP snooping if you have a managed switch that uses it (many do by default), unless you know you need it.

STOIE

@geeklex

I know this is an old thread, but if it helps people in the future, I just wanted to say:

Thanks mate, your solution worked perfectly!

xman111

yup for me too.. thanks.

dredder

@geeklex: awesome, I'd've never been able to figure this out on my own.

btw. PS4 connection test shows NAT 2 even if UPNP is disabled. Let's see how this goes in the games

bgbird03

@geeklex:

Just wanted to point out that this resolved the issue for me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/2uc645/need_help_getting_open_nat_on_ps4/coltde7

Things Required.

1: An unchanging IP address for the PS4 (dhcp static mapping).
2: UPNP enabled.
3: NO manually created port forwards to the PS4.
4:A rule in "Firewall: NAT: Outbound" specific to outbound UDP traffic from the PS4 that has the "Static Port" option enabled. The STUN-based networking that PS4/Destiny want to use cannot work with PFSense's default behaviour of randomizing source ports.

Anyone able to help me with the Firewall: NAT: Outbound rule? Not quite enough details in this post for me to understand what boxes to check/ fill in. Also, I was able to pull a NAT Type 2 on my PS4 with just the first three steps done here (really just 1 & 2 since I didn't have any unique firewall rules). We'll see if that holds up when I try voice chatting/ party play.

Napsterbater

Instead of setting Static IPs for consoles so you can make special Outbound NAT Rules, what I do is just set Outbound NAT to "Manual Outbound NAT" and change the "Auto created rule - LAN to WAN" and enable Static Port for the whole subnet. There is little reason or benefit to have random source ports anyways and this solves quite a few things, not just for consoles.

bgbird03

@Napsterbater:

Instead of setting Static IPs for consoles so you can make special Outbound NAT Rules, what I do is just set Outbound NAT to "Manual Outbound NAT" and change the "Auto created rule - LAN to WAN" and enable Static Port for the whole subnet. There is little reason or benefit to have random source ports anyways and this solves quite a few things, not just for consoles.

Okay – I went into Firewall -- NAT -- Outbound and changed it to Manual Outbound NAT rule generation. I left all of the other rules alone, except the very last rule (description says Auto Created rule - LAN to WAN) and...the only thing I changed in here was under Translation I clicked the box "Static Port". Is that correct? I have "no idea" what I'm actually doing when I do this, so we'll see how it goes.

I was able to successfully get (prior to doing this) my PS4 to grab a Type 2 NAT and 50 Mbps (my purchased bandwidth) on the internet connection test, but when I tried to play some BF4 I experienced extreme latency (lag/high ping) when playing online -- even tried different servers. I regrettably plugged my Verizon router back in and of course, everything worked perfectly. Ugh.

Thanks for your help! We'll see if this helps with my ping.

kejianshi

You need to do it correctly for it to work. Please post a pic of your outbound NAT config and also post your game consoles IP.

Napsterbater

@bgbird03:

@Napsterbater:

Instead of setting Static IPs for consoles so you can make special Outbound NAT Rules, what I do is just set Outbound NAT to "Manual Outbound NAT" and change the "Auto created rule - LAN to WAN" and enable Static Port for the whole subnet. There is little reason or benefit to have random source ports anyways and this solves quite a few things, not just for consoles.

Okay – I went into Firewall -- NAT -- Outbound and changed it to Manual Outbound NAT rule generation. I left all of the other rules alone, except the very last rule (description says Auto Created rule - LAN to WAN) and...the only thing I changed in here was under Translation I clicked the box "Static Port". Is that correct? I have "no idea" what I'm actually doing when I do this, so we'll see how it goes.

I was able to successfully get (prior to doing this) my PS4 to grab a Type 2 NAT and 50 Mbps (my purchased bandwidth) on the internet connection test, but when I tried to play some BF4 I experienced extreme latency (lag/high ping) when playing online -- even tried different servers. I regrettably plugged my Verizon router back in and of course, everything worked perfectly. Ugh.

Thanks for your help! We'll see if this helps with my ping.

Port Forwarding/NAT issues DO NOT affect ping/latency.

They only affect connectability.

If you have Open NAT/Type 2 and you have no issue joining the game/s, and nothing complaining of NAT issues, then it is not a Port Forward issue.

bgbird03

@kejianshi:

You need to do it correctly for it to work. Please post a pic of your outbound NAT config and also post your game consoles IP.

Okay this is the outbound NAT config. Running the most current version of pfSense, 2.4.1. PS4 is a static IP 192.168.1.3 (.2 is my wireless access point that I have my PS4 connected to via ethernet). 192.168.1.1 of course is the gateway/LAN port on the pfSense box.

![Outbound NAT Config.PNG](/public/imported_attachments/1/Outbound NAT Config.PNG)
![Outbound NAT Config.PNG_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Outbound NAT Config.PNG_thumb)

bgbird03

@Napsterbater:

@bgbird03:

@Napsterbater:

Instead of setting Static IPs for consoles so you can make special Outbound NAT Rules, what I do is just set Outbound NAT to "Manual Outbound NAT" and change the "Auto created rule - LAN to WAN" and enable Static Port for the whole subnet. There is little reason or benefit to have random source ports anyways and this solves quite a few things, not just for consoles.

Okay – I went into Firewall -- NAT -- Outbound and changed it to Manual Outbound NAT rule generation. I left all of the other rules alone, except the very last rule (description says Auto Created rule - LAN to WAN) and...the only thing I changed in here was under Translation I clicked the box "Static Port". Is that correct? I have "no idea" what I'm actually doing when I do this, so we'll see how it goes.

I was able to successfully get (prior to doing this) my PS4 to grab a Type 2 NAT and 50 Mbps (my purchased bandwidth) on the internet connection test, but when I tried to play some BF4 I experienced extreme latency (lag/high ping) when playing online -- even tried different servers. I regrettably plugged my Verizon router back in and of course, everything worked perfectly. Ugh.

Thanks for your help! We'll see if this helps with my ping.

Port Forwarding/NAT issues DO NOT affect ping/latency.

They only affect connectability.

If you have Open NAT/Type 2 and you have no issue joining the game/s, and nothing complaining of NAT issues, then it is not a Port Forward issue.

Okay, thanks for the heads up! I posted my configs to see if I did it right I guess…even if it won't fix my PS4 latency issues. Appreciate the clarification.

kejianshi

It will work fine, but I would change that source to 192.168.1.3 / 32

I would also then switch it to hybrid outbound NAT. Just in case your network changes in the future.

bgbird03

@kejianshi:

It will work fine, but I would change that source to 192.168.1.3 / 32

I would also then switch it to hybrid outbound NAT. Just in case your network changes in the future.

So change the last rule – LAN to WAN to a Source IP of 192.168.1.3/32? What about the rest of the IPs in 192.168.1.0/24? Don't they need access to this same rule? (clearly showing my ignorance here).

And OK -- switched to Hybrid mode. Thx.

kejianshi

No. Just the 1 device you are having problems with.

kejianshi

Clarification. Make a rule for the 192.168.1.3/32 with a static port
Then below that add a rule for the 192.168.1.0/24 without static port.

The rules are executed in order.

Then if you send me a pic again, I'll let you know if it is right. I'm sure you will get it right.

bgbird03

Perfect! Did just that. Thanks.

kejianshi

Great. Enjoy.

Napsterbater

@kejianshi:

Clarification. Make a rule for the 192.168.1.3/32 with a static port
Then below that add a rule for the 192.168.1.0/24 without static port.
[/quote

Why?

Make 192.168.1.0/24 static port, that way it is done for any future Consoles or P2P apps, then no need to make more rules for each new console/app/device and such, there is practically no reason not to have static port today, except to further break P2P.

Also Why tell Op to switch to hybrid then negate that with a rule covering the /24, a rule which is already in place due to hybrid?

kejianshi

Because there is no need to make the entire /24 static.

Also, I can tell by the lack of mistakes that he can do this again for another device any time he likes. He isn't lost at all.

I'd be really surprised if a automatic rule trumped his manual rule in hybrid mode, but if it did, I'd say thats a bug.

Napsterbater

@kejianshi:

Because there is no need to make the entire /24 static.

There is also no (real) reason not to, and again takes care of any futures consoles/P2P apps that have issues with randomized ports.

@kejianshi:

I'd be really surprised if a automatic rule trumped his manual rule in hybrid mode, but if it did, I'd say that's a bug.

No I was saying YOU told him to use hybrid mode vs manual, then also told them to make a /24 rule (in addition to the /32)… there was no point to the 2nd /24 rule since you had them do hybrid, that /24 was already made.