New Install: Slow Upload Through Opnsense, Normal Directly Wired

Started by mdvaldosta, July 02, 2023, 06:19:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
I have a new dedicated circuit (DIA) from AT&T business with a static /29 "LAN" passed through their /30 "WAN". Right now I'm only using the static IPv4 WAN IP/gateway and the internet works - though upload is inappropriately slow when ran through an appliance with Opnsense. AT&T tells me everything is fine on their end, and a foreign freelance network engineer I gig hired couldn't figure it out either. When I connect the ISP supplied getaway directly to my Windows machine and use the WAN static IP, I get the appropriate speeds. Some more info:

QuoteInterface Type: 100 Base TX
Auto Negotiation: Off/Disabled Duplex Full

IPv4 WAN IP Address: 32.xxx.xxx.28
IPv4 CR IP Address: 32.xxx.xxx.30
IPv4 AR IP Address: 32.xxx.xxx.29
IPv4 WAN Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.252

IPv4 Default Gateway: 32.xxx.xxx.29

IPv4 LAN IP Address: 12.xxx.xxx.48
IPv4 Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.248
IPv4 Usable IP: 5

For the WAN interface, I am using Static IPv4 32.xxx.xxx.30/30 and 32.xxx.xxx.29 for the gateway.


  • I am using a high-end appliance with an N100, 226-V NICs, and 8 gb ram. I have replicated the exact same issue when using a different appliance with a N5100 and I226-V NICs both with the latest versions of Opnsense 23.1.11 and Pfsense plus which came pre-installed on one of the appliances
  • This is a stock setup, exists with no plugins or intrusion detection etc, just set static IPs and speed test.
  • CPU usage is 2-5% on all cores during testing
  • Speed is ~47 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up, while simultaneous download/upload the upload drops as low as < 1 Mbps
  • I have tried changing LAN/WAN MTU and MSS to 1400 without significant change
  • Packet loss exists only on upload, and is ~ 1% consistently

I am not in any way a networking expert. I've spent several days trying to sort this out and I don't know where to look next.


Quote from: mdvaldosta on July 04, 2023, 01:59:47 PM
Turns out this was, in fact, an AT&T issue.

Did they say what it ended up being or did it just go away on it's own?