Messages

Schon wieder was gelernt.  :)

Ich fürchte, wenn der Ziel-Host nicht wie bei HTTP in den jeweiligen Protokollheadern enthalten ist, dann hast du eher schlechte Karten mit z.B. SSH, weil die vom Client verwendete Domain so einfach nie beim Server ankommt. Dann filtert es sich auch mit Bastellösungen schlecht.

Aber vielleicht hat ja noch einer ne Idee?

No exotic interface, just VLAN on a physical gigabit ethernet port. There was no automatic rule creation for port 53 TCP/UDP, see attached screenshot. Queries aren't answered until I manually create an allow rule from interface net to interface address on 53 TCP/UDP. So the firewall is working as expected but the original question remains.

Hi,

I was wondering why there is no automatic firewall rule creation for the interfaces Unbound DNS listens on like there is for DHCPv4/v6.

Any ideas or theories?  :)

Its not bug, unbound will process ok, its just counter-intuitive GUI.

As I wrote here https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=27846.msg135631#msg135631

I have to select Host on top to see alias in bottom?
That's terribly counter intuitive - when I want to find alias, I need to click on 50 hosts if some of them have aliases to be displayed.
When nothing is selected on top, all aliases should be displayed.

Sweet hipster Jesus on a jetski!

Nekroposting this to confirm that I ran into this issue and considered it a defect until you made me realize that it's simply UI design from hell. Thanks, mnaim!

There is a checkbox where a radio button should be. Don't do that, please. :)

Wird vielleicht dein RFC6598-Adressraum in irgendeiner relevanten Regel verworfen? 🤔

Hast du schon mal geschaut, wieviel auf deinen verwendeten WLAN-Kanälen so los ist? Wenn da bereits das Problem liegt, dann hilft es auch nicht, den Scherbenhaufen dahinter zu shapen. 😁