ATT Uverse RG Bypass (0.2 BTC)
-
@stephenw10 the intel driver bug was supposed to be fixed in 2.7/23.01. And I disabled -vlanhwfilter. I'm not testing netgraph,my goal was to eliminate netgraph and just be able to auth with wpa_supplicant in its own.
-
The e1000 driver bug is not fixed. I tested it last week when confirming the igc is not affected.
If you disable vlan hardware filtering and run a pcap you will see the incoming tagged packets.
I would try that and see what's responding or not from pfSense.Presumably you have some other script running to activate the wpa_suplicant with the appropriate certs etc?
-
@bigjohns97 said in ATT Uverse RG Bypass (0.2 BTC):
@gpz1100 I've never tried proxmox other than one time playing around with unraid which I believe runs proxmox under the covers.
Were you defining your vNIC's with your VLANs as "vlan aware"?In ESXi I would just assign the vlan 0 as well as set the MAC address to my att provided gateway MAC in the interface options for the virtual machine for the WAN interface and that was it. Didn't have to do anything on the pfsense guest itself outside of running a simple wpa_supplicant script to get a DHCP address from Att.
I tried defining the vlan with both vlan aware enabled and disabled. Made no difference as far as wpa_supplicant being able to receive the eapol traffic.
I tried with both the intel nic and a usb rtl8153 based nic, both failed.
My "production" firewall is sophos utm under proxmox. The intel nic is in passthrough mode for the wan. There I run wpa_supplicant directly, without anything additional to handle vlan0. It's been working fine for a number of years. UTM is going EOL so exploring other options.
-
Well since there is no gui options for that in pfSense you would need, at a minimum, something like this: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5474
-
@gpz1100 you're not passing the NIC through on proxmox are you?
-
When passing the nic, the netgraph method works for dealing with eapol.
I was testing NOT passing the nic but creating a bridge specifying .0 as a bridge member as indicated in the proxmox link (https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/how-to-pass-vlan-0-priority-tags-to-pfsense-for-dhcp.112374/ post 2). Which did not work. I got no auth.
Also tested specifying different interface drivers (virtio, vmxnet3, and e1000). The eapol data was just not coming through.
-
Someone over on the discord channel mentioned they were able to get opnsense 23 to work without using netgraph at all.
Wpa_supplicant is still required, but the only change is flagging the wan port with vlanpcp 7. No promisc, no -vanhwfilter, etc.
ifconfig igb0 vlanpcp 7I could not replicate this. In testing, eapol traffic was coming as 888e from the ONT. A logon command from wpa_cli would leave as 8100 from the wan interface.
It was then suggested to use a smart switch with port based vlans. That is configure 2 unused ports on a separate untagged vlan. Similar to the old school dumb switch method.
I first tested with a dumb switch (dgs-1005) with no success. Same issue as above
Then used a managed switch. Looks like this on a dlink dgs-1100-08;
A comparable configuration on a netgear gs308t did NOT work. There was no traffic passed as the switch completely ignored the inbound vlan0 tagging from the ONT.
On the dlink however, this was successful. Tcpdump showed no vlan or priority tags for the wan interface. Wpa_supplicant worked flawlessly without netgraph as did dhcp. It would appear the dlink switch successfully striped the vlan0 tags.
All eapol traffic contained 888e for ethertype in both directions. Success present in both opnsense 23.1.5.x and pfsense+ 23.01. I did not test older versions.
I expect other switches to work as well, but it matters in what the default behavior is with vlan0 packets. Does it ignore the traffic entirely (netgear gs308t), or does it treat it as native vlan and allow to pass (dlink dgs-1100-08)? -
@gpz1100 said in ATT Uverse RG Bypass (0.2 BTC):
Someone over on the discord channel mentioned they were able to get opnsense 23 to work without using netgraph at all.
Wpa_supplicant is still required, but the only change is flagging the wan port with vlanpcp 7. No promisc, no -vanhwfilter, etc.
ifconfig igb0 vlanpcp 7I could not replicate this. In testing, eapol traffic was coming as 888e from the ONT. A logon command from wpa_cli would leave as 8100 from the wan interface.
It was then suggested to use a smart switch with port based vlans. That is configure 2 unused ports on a separate untagged vlan. Similar to the old school dumb switch method.
I first tested with a dumb switch (dgs-1005) with no success. Same issue as above
Then used a managed switch. Looks like this on a dlink dgs-1100-08;
A comparable configuration on a netgear gs308t did NOT work. There was no traffic passed as the switch completely ignored the inbound vlan0 tagging from the ONT.
On the dlink however, this was successful. Tcpdump showed no vlan or priority tags for the wan interface. Wpa_supplicant worked flawlessly without netgraph as did dhcp. It would appear the dlink switch successfully striped the vlan0 tags.
All eapol traffic contained 888e for ethertype in both directions. Success present in both opnsense 23.1.5.x and pfsense+ 23.01. I did not test older versions.
I expect other switches to work as well, but it matters in what the default behavior is with vlan0 packets. Does it ignore the traffic entirely (netgear gs308t), or does it treat it as native vlan and allow to pass (dlink dgs-1100-08)?I tried pcp 7 as well and couldn't get it to auth either.
-
@bigjohns97 said in ATT Uverse RG Bypass (0.2 BTC):
I tried pcp 7 as well and couldn't get it to auth either.
To be clear did you try that with the switch reported working (dlink dgs-1100-08)?
-
@t41k2m3 Nope, this is just me using ifconfig to tag the WAN interface with pcp7 traffic trying to get an 802.1x auth without using netgraph.
https://github.com/MonkWho/pfatt/issues/79
You can see in the above discussion that someone was able to make this work but they did not have an intel NIC.
They were using a Marvell NIC and an ARM proc.
-
@bigjohns97 @GPz1100 or others - has anyone experienced issues with pfatt - ngeth0 and wpa supplicant post upgrade to 23.05? At bootup it seems to be trying to assign ngeth0 to WAN before ngeth0 is created via the earlyshellcmd script. Bootup therefore gets stuck waiting for manual interface assignment. That was not the case in 23.01 and earlier. Short of adding a switch or (new) modem/RG bridge options in 23.05, any thoughts on how the old setup could be kept running?
-
@t41k2m3 said in ATT Uverse RG Bypass (0.2 BTC):
@bigjohns97 @GPz1100 or others - has anyone experienced issues with pfatt - ngeth0 and wpa supplicant post upgrade to 23.05? At bootup it seems to be trying to assign ngeth0 to WAN before ngeth0 is created via the earlyshellcmd script. Bootup therefore gets stuck waiting for manual interface assignment. That was not the case in 23.01 and earlier. Short of adding a switch or (new) modem/RG bridge options in 23.05, any thoughts on how the old setup could be kept running?
Sorry I moved over to the stripper switch method to get rid of the complex ngeth0 scripts so I can't comment on this.
Would still love to run native using PCP 7 but waiting on the wpa supplicant to be patched to be able to support VLAN 0.
-
In 23.05 you can remove both and use the native ether bridge-to rules instead:
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/authbridge.htmlWith the router authentication at least. If you're using the cert directly that doesn't apply.
Steve
-
@stephenw10 I am using certs, for those using certificates we have to wait for the wpa supplicant to be patched like the dhclient was recently.
-
@t41k2m3 yes .. same issue.
Every upgrade is a new surprise. I was so excited for this one because we were SO close to using the supplicant without netgraph. It appears interfaces are now assigned before the earlyshellcmd scripts are ran, so it's broken for me. Having to use another workaround at the moment.
edit: switched to the new GUI supported pass-through method and it's working well so far!
-
@bigjohns97 said in ATT Uverse RG Bypass (0.2 BTC):
Sorry I moved over to the stripper switch method to get rid of the complex ngeth0 scripts so I can't comment on this.
Would still love to run native using PCP 7 but waiting on the wpa supplicant to be patched to be able to support VLAN 0.
Could not get stripper switch to work on pfs 23.05 (one of the switches from https://github.com/MonkWho/pfatt/issues/82). EAP auth succeeds but will not get DHCP address. Might that depend on FTTN/FTTH and ISP upstream setup (hence why certain switches seem to work for some but not all)?
-
@t41k2m3 Does pfatt with netgraph work for you? I would expect a stripper switch to work as well then.
I haven't tested 23.05 yet, but 23.01 worked just fine with the switches mentioned in the https://github.com/MonkWho/pfatt/issues/82 thread.
If pfatt/netgraph works, verify you're using the correct mac for the wan.
-
@GPz1100 said in ATT Uverse RG Bypass (0.2 BTC):
@t41k2m3 Does pfatt with netgraph work for you? I would expect a stripper switch to work as well then.
I haven't tested 23.05 yet, but 23.01 worked just fine with the switches mentioned in the https://github.com/MonkWho/pfatt/issues/82 thread.
If pfatt/netgraph works, verify you're using the correct mac for the wan.
I'm on 23.05 and using stripper switch (5 port) successfully. Didn't have to change anything going from 23.01 to 23.05.
-
Do any of you have this to working with the newer AT&T gateways with a built-in ONT?
-
S stephenw10 referenced this topic on
-
Hi folks, I'm crossing over from a post I made in the general forum: Quirky bypass on 22.05 with AT&T fiber
-
I've got the 'official' bypass working with 23.05 and a BGW210, but my pfsense bootup is now quite a bit longer. It's taking about 75 seconds at "configuring wan interface" when it used to take just a few seconds before I performed the bypass.
-
The RG's LED indicator for 'broadband' flashes green while PFsense is booting, but then switches to flashing red after a few minutes, despite the baypass working and having full connectivity on my connection. This is a lesser issue, but I'm just confused by it.
I appreciate any insight as to why the wan config is taking so much longer, or why the RG wouldn't seem to detect the broadband connection. Thanks in advance!
-
