Messages

It started around februari 2025, suddenly, after a reboot of the firewall the NAT rules did not work anymore.
All rules have the logging on, but when I check in the live log, I don't even see any incoming connection, not accepted and not denied.
Other connections work as they should, only NAT doesn't work.

I checked, checked and checked again, removed contraints, recreated the rules, no avail.

But then: after about 4 hours (after the reboot) everything suddenly starts to work again.
Without me doing anything ....

And this is at EVERY reboot of the opnsense firewall.

Somebody? Any suggestions?

Found the setting, in case anyone needs it.

HTTP(s) Location – advanced settings – Advanced Proxy options – proxy Read timeout = 999999

A little bit late but:

OpenVPN instances, Miscellaneous, Options: persist-remote-ip

M@rch0n,

I have exactly the same problem using the NGINX proxy.
Without NGINX, no errors appear.

Did you ever find a solution?

On consumer internet contracts you won't be able to host your own DNS server which is open to internet, you need to either host that DNS on VPS like azure or AWS or setup VPN or proxy.

ISPs of most countries block incoming DNS traffic on UDP 53 to prevent people being able to mess up global DNS servers and DNS spoofing, outgoing smtp traffic on TCP 25 to prevent spamming and few other ports only hosting companies like google, amazon AWS, Microsoft and Eila Kaisla need, in fact some countries (for example Finland for one) even have laws which obligate ISPs to do that.

Its a business contract, not consumer.

But clear - port 25 incoming just works, but it look like 53 is blocked by the provider.
But I already fond another solution that solves the problem, and this can be closed as OpnSense is not the cause.

For the solution (in the case someone is interested):

Its for a branche office with 2 people - we do not have a site2site VPN and don't want one.
So I solved it by setting the DNS on the machines to 127.0.0.1 and add a NetSh Interface Proxy, listening on 127.0.0.1 port 53 and forwarding it to the destination IP on port 5353, that I NAT there to port 53 on the destination.
Not a perfect solution, but it works.

Unclear.
Do you mean you want to forward dns queries (port 53) from WAN to a specific machine on LAN , or within your LAN, or something else?

I want to forward DNS queries from WAN (originating from specific IP's) to a specific machine on LAN.

I am trying to MAP port 53 and some other ports, only from a specific source, and map it to a specific machine in the LAN.

All other ports work, but for 53, I don't even see the connections in the in the logs.
So, I don't see it even blocked.

Is this something from within OpnSense, or do I have to contact my Internet provider to ask him to open port 53?
Because, as far as I know, all ports should be open ...

What needs to be flushed to disk will be flushed to disk. And ZFS never does in-place overwrites. So if you write every 5 seconds or 18 times the transaction groups every 90 seconds ...

If @tverweij running virtualised instances is indeed using ZFS that specifically is a bad idea. Due to its copy on write nature you cannot thin provision virtual disks (well you can, but it doesn't make sense) because ZFS will eventually write every single disk block and so blow up the disk to its configured maximum size.

For virtual disks it's much better to use UFS and manage snapshots and backups at the hypervisor host level.

That is a good word of advice.
Maybe a good idea to add this advice to the installation docs?

Because I chose ZFS because the docs say:
"Install (UFS|ZFS) - Choose UFS or ZFS filesystem. ZFS is in most cases the best option as it is the most reliable option, but it does require enough capacity (a couple of gigabytes at least)."

A typical mSATA SSD used for embedded systems like the Transcend m370 series has got a TBW value of 180 for the 64 GB model.

At 120 kB/s write and using multiples of 1000 for calculation this means you can write to this disk for 1500000000 seconds = 416667 hours = 17361 days = 47.5 years before reaching the specified TBW.

Similarly your initial figure of 6 GB per day results in 30000 days or 82 years.

As I work on virtual machines (also for OpnSense), writes are always bad.
It is not only about wear of the SSDs used.

More important is that every write costs replication bandwidth, local backup space, cloud backup space and also causes the disks to wear.
9 GB (120kbs/sec) does not seem much, but translates to 9Gb traffic, 18Gb storage (replication), 18 Gb backups, 18 GB traffic for offsite backups and 18 GB of paid storage on the offsite backups. Per day.

Do This for 50 VM's and you find that a continuous write of 120 kB/sec is really a big waste of resources and adds a lot to the operational costs.

I have a few own blacklists, hosted on my own website.
This website is placed behind the OpnSense NGINX plugin.

When I create an alias IP table (on another firewall) with this (https or http, both the same) url, it won't load any ip.
When I create a portmapping on port 81 from the WAN to the website on port 80, bypassing NGINX, everything works as expected.

So it looks like the iptables and NGINX won't play together.

Did you also take a look at some performance improvements for OPNsense? Especially the Spectre and Meltdown mitigations? I've seen some major improvement on some systems when disabling these mitigations.

https://docs.opnsense.org/troubleshooting/hardening.html

You're a life saver!
My intercontinental IPSec lines just went to a usable state  :)

Don't know offhand if there's a way to only update to s previous version, but I don't believe there was anything in 23.7.6 that would cause internet loss.

Maybe related to my problem on 23.7.5?

If you're using separate subdomains such as mail.example.com, ftp.example.com and www.example.com you can just run an ACME client on each of those servers for that subdomain specifically.

That is what is failing with NGINX in between ...

Do you mean restore the virtual disk that the virtual machine is using? and are you using zfs or ufs as the filesystem?
kup. Sorry but you haven't ruled anything yet in terms of environment.

I mean that I restored the plain vhdx file that is attached to the SCSII controller and functions as HD. Would be the same in VMWare when the VMDK file is restored.
I use ZFS.

I looked at it and searched google.
Everywhere, the standard HyperV network  adapters are adviced, also for FreeBsd (and yes, FreeBsd is 100% supported)