136
21.1 Legacy Series / Re: Remote logging broken?
« on: April 24, 2021, 06:10:38 pm »
Yup, just checked mine too, working fine. TCP to log server on internal network.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
137
General Discussion / Re: Prompt to save config prior to upgrading
« on: April 22, 2021, 11:19:05 pm »
Mines a custom job using rsync, backs up my entire conf folder plus some scripts that live in etc and rc.d. Fresh install with all scripts back in place takes < 5 minutes.
138
General Discussion / Re: Prompt to save config prior to upgrading
« on: April 22, 2021, 06:41:59 pm »
Or as I do, back up config and critical scripts automatically every night... then I do not need to remember. 
139
General Discussion / Re: Cannot get dhclient to get an IP address on WAN
« on: April 22, 2021, 02:55:16 pm »
Can I make a suggestion. Turn off the ISP gateway and leave it off for an hour. The lease time is 60 minutes, so let any existing lease expire before re-starting. Sky UK used to have a weirdo where that had to be done.
140
General Discussion / Re: Cannot get dhclient to get an IP address on WAN
« on: April 22, 2021, 01:38:14 pm »
There's nothing peculiar or non standard about the dhcp client, it's a bog standard client. Only time I've ever heard of issues is when the ISP has some weird authentication employed; usually mac spoofing is sufficient.
141
General Discussion / Re: Cannot get dhclient to get an IP address on WAN
« on: April 22, 2021, 01:26:45 pm »142
General Discussion / Re: Cannot get dhclient to get an IP address on WAN
« on: April 22, 2021, 01:08:29 pm »
Is there a user forum for that ISP where someone may have posted a similar issue?
143
General Discussion / Re: Cannot get dhclient to get an IP address on WAN
« on: April 22, 2021, 11:36:25 am »
Try spoofing the mac that the ISP router uses.
---Edit---
Also check that the ISP is not using some other form of validation.
---Edit---
Also check that the ISP is not using some other form of validation.
144
General Discussion / Re: Connecting to current instance console
« on: April 17, 2021, 12:16:24 pm »
You'll likely get no help as
a) you are unable to find the VM on which your current Opnsense is running.
b) Looking at your previous SOS message, you state the main router is 'HUAWEI', that is likely to be the modem, and not the Opnsense firewall/router. If the interface comes up with Opnsense then you are connected to Opnsense, if it comes up Huawei then you are connected to the modem.
a) you are unable to find the VM on which your current Opnsense is running.
b) Looking at your previous SOS message, you state the main router is 'HUAWEI', that is likely to be the modem, and not the Opnsense firewall/router. If the interface comes up with Opnsense then you are connected to Opnsense, if it comes up Huawei then you are connected to the modem.
145
General Discussion / Re: Postfix Plugin: "mail for <internal IP> loops back to myself"
« on: April 16, 2021, 03:43:48 pm »
As it's a plugin per say, you may be better off asking on the postfix forum; have you read the documentation available at postfix.org?
I do a similar thing, but I do not use postfix plugin, I use an EFA VM as my mail gateway which then delivers it to a Kerio instance. It sounds like it's more of a mail system issue than an Opnsense issue which may be why no-one has responded.
I do a similar thing, but I do not use postfix plugin, I use an EFA VM as my mail gateway which then delivers it to a Kerio instance. It sounds like it's more of a mail system issue than an Opnsense issue which may be why no-one has responded.
146
General Discussion / Re: UDP Broadcast Relay
« on: April 14, 2021, 08:08:45 pm »
To be honest, I never even thought about someone relaying a broadcast 255.255.255.255 packet. It was intended to relay multicast and unicast packets on a specific port.
Just did a quick google and it mutters something about the Playstation using SSDP on port 987. So that is what you should have set in the port number, which address you should use I cannot quickly find. I suggest you use wireshark and see what the packet address is. You can add a filter of ssdp, that should easily allow you to see the address being used. If it is using 255.255.255.255 that's a bit odd.
Just did a quick google and it mutters something about the Playstation using SSDP on port 987. So that is what you should have set in the port number, which address you should use I cannot quickly find. I suggest you use wireshark and see what the packet address is. You can add a filter of ssdp, that should easily allow you to see the address being used. If it is using 255.255.255.255 that's a bit odd.
147
General Discussion / Re: UDP Broadcast Relay
« on: April 14, 2021, 07:46:45 pm »
I'm guessing this is thrown because 255.255.255.255 is technically outside the "official" multicast range? Either way, I think it'd be nice to have some kind of feedback in the web UI if the daemon can't be started for some reason. The most I can see from there is that it failed to start in the system log files but it doesn't tell me why.
Correct, that's not multicast it's broadcast.
148
General Discussion / Re: UDP Broadcast Relay
« on: April 14, 2021, 07:06:55 pm »
UDPR itself does not need rules as it bypasses the fw. The only rule(s) needed are for the server to respond back to the client which does not go via UDPR.
149
General Discussion / Re: Support for dynamic IPv6 prefixes in firewall rules?
« on: April 14, 2021, 11:36:13 am »
@134 - Thanks for that. Nice lease time your ISP gives you... 10 minutes!
The other things to make note of is the addresses on the interfaces, check Interfaces->Overview and see if the new addresses have been applied correctly and whether the old address has been removed. I have a feeling that this might be the cause of some of our problems. Your issue with statics is as has been said more complex, but we're looking at that with renewed vigour; I tend to aggress with @franco though, the pfS patch whilst looking simple is not so straight forward.
The other things to make note of is the addresses on the interfaces, check Interfaces->Overview and see if the new addresses have been applied correctly and whether the old address has been removed. I have a feeling that this might be the cause of some of our problems. Your issue with statics is as has been said more complex, but we're looking at that with renewed vigour; I tend to aggress with @franco though, the pfS patch whilst looking simple is not so straight forward.
150
General Discussion / Re: Support for dynamic IPv6 prefixes in firewall rules?
« on: April 14, 2021, 12:59:31 am »
@134 - As Maurice said we are looking at tracking aliases which should work with statically assigned devices on the LAN. However at the moment I'm looking at an issue with dhcp6c client where I think it's not correctly updating the addresses and prefixes on the LAN side when the prefix changes. I need full dhcp6 logs though, if your prepared to share your logs with me that would be really useful. PM them to if you wish to keep them private. Firstly you'll need to go to Interfaces->Settings and set dhcp6c logging to debug and then reboot. I don't know how often your ISP changes your prefix, but a couple of cycles worth of system logs would be useful. To anyone else reading this I'm really looking for the debug info from dhcp6c when the prefix changes, does the address on your WAN and the LAN change correctly too? My initial debugging seems to suggest that dhcp6c is ( or was ) not removing the existing prefix(es) from the interfaces and in some cases is adding the new prefix on top. If we can get some concise answers to exactly what's going on with dhcp6c then it will be more likely that when we start work on the prefix aliases it will work properly.