Re: [pfSense Support] pfSense 0.76.2: No rdr rule for Squid Transparent Proxy
Hi Scott and all,
I don't experience Squid dying in pfsense yet. But, I
did experience this in the past when Squid core dumps
in my custom FreeBSD box.
The possibility of Squid dying or terminating (for
whatever reason) is not remote and with the rdr rules
for transparent proxying still in effect, this could
effectively block http traffic.
A solution could be to use a script (See the RunCache
script for squid as reference) to periodically check
if squid is still running and when it's not, the
script should set the filter dirty flag to reload the
filters.
With this solution, the /etc/inc/filter.inc should
also be modified to allow removal of the rdr rule for
transparent proxying only when squid has died or
terminated.
...
if (is_package_installed(squid) == 1)
if(is_process_running(squid)) {
//insert rule for transp proxy
}
else {
//remove rdr rule for transp proxy
}
...
I hope this makes my point clear.
Miles
--- Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SQUID should not be dying. If it is then I need to
deactivate the
package until a new one is released on the freebsd
site.
Scott
On 8/16/05, Albert Miles Enabe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No need to file a ticket. Thanks for the swift
action.
I'll wait till next release then.
Also, I am concerned of the Squid process dying
for
any reason and the rdr rule for transparent
proxying
is still in effect. This will block http traffic
to
the internet. Any solution for this?
Thanks again.
Miles
--- Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The solution here is to set the filter dirty
flag in
the squid startup
script. This will force the rules to be
reloaded
and then squid will
be running.
I'll take care of it shortly.
Scott
On 8/16/05, Bill Marquette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Albert, can you file a ticket on this at
http://cvstrac.pfsense.com/ ?
I'd rather not delay boot until squid is up,
but I
suppose that's open
for debate. Without looking at the code, I'm
wondering if we're even
starting up squid before the filter.
Can you insert a sleep(); statement before the
is_process_running
statement and tell us how long you have to
sleep
for to get reliable
results? Also, what speed hardware is this on?
Thanks
--Bill
On 8/16/05, Albert Miles Enabe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think it is actually a BUG in the script
/etc/inc/filter.inc that checks for the
squid
process
at boot time which will return FALSE because
no
package is loaded during this time yet. See
the
/etc/rc script for the loading sequence.
The /etc/rc.bootup script that initializes
the
pf
rules is called before executing rc.d items.
Please
see the /etc/rc script.
As a solution, the
if(is_process_running(squid))
at line no. 1134 of the file
/etc/inc/filter.inc
must
be commented out.
Cheers!
--- Bachman Kharazmi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When the squid package has installed
properly
without any errors type:
# pfctl -sr | grep rdr
if that returns a rule and trans.proxy
still
doesn't
work (make sure
the squid process is running) then I would
suggest
you read the squid
logs to findout why it doesn't cache.
/bkw
On 8/16/05, Albert Miles Enabe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
The rdr (nat) rule for squid transparent
proxy is
missing on pfsense 0.76.2 which causes
transparent
proxying NOT to function properly. The
corresponding
pass rules are present however.
The problem is corrected by commenting
out
line#
1134
of /etc/inc/filter.inc:
if
(is_package_installed(squid) ==
1)
//if
(is_process_running(squid))
Could it be because this function was
called
at
the
time when squid has not fully loaded
itself?
If
this
is the case, then it would be better if
the
rc
loader
for squid be given enough time to
sleep
for a
while
before exiting.
Thanks.
Miles
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best
spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
##
BKW - Bachman Kharazmi
bahkha AT gmail DOT com
uin:
[pfSense Support] Load Balancer
I have just upgrade from 73.12 to 77 on soekris 4801 Is load balancer for outbound connection too? The bug of ssh not restarting after a configuration restore is still here. regards Rodolfo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pfSense Support] iperf question
On 8/18/05, Randy B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Buechler wrote: Not unless you're running both a client and server at each end. Unfortunately, not the case - Yes it is. iperf doesn't test full duplex, it's one direction only (with one connection, run a server and a client on each side and you can test full duplex). You'll never get more than 100 Mb on a 100Mb link or 10 Mb on a 10 Mb link, even if it's full duplex, with a single iperf server and client. I'm able to get 93Mb to another machine on the network - acceptable, given the cheap switch I have. that's roughly as good as you're going to get on 100 Mb. I have two rl cards and one sis - sis0 is linked to my cable modem and my LAN is to rl0. The RL NICs are both rather new, and both say they've autonegotiated at 100Mb. rl's are known for poor performance, but should be better than that unless you're only running a 100-200 MHz machine or so. what duplex does it say? or does it not say? I'm still thinking duplex mismatch, though 20 something Mb is quite a bit for having a mismatch. You should be seeing: media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) in your ifconfig output. Exactly what are you seeing on that line? -cmb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [pfSense Support] iperf question
I'd also like to know which rl cards these are. Can you send the output of pciconf -lv? thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Buechler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:31 AM Cc: support@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] iperf question On 8/18/05, Randy B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Buechler wrote: Not unless you're running both a client and server at each end. Unfortunately, not the case - Yes it is. iperf doesn't test full duplex, it's one direction only (with one connection, run a server and a client on each side and you can test full duplex). You'll never get more than 100 Mb on a 100Mb link or 10 Mb on a 10 Mb link, even if it's full duplex, with a single iperf server and client. I'm able to get 93Mb to another machine on the network - acceptable, given the cheap switch I have. that's roughly as good as you're going to get on 100 Mb. I have two rl cards and one sis - sis0 is linked to my cable modem and my LAN is to rl0. The RL NICs are both rather new, and both say they've autonegotiated at 100Mb. rl's are known for poor performance, but should be better than that unless you're only running a 100-200 MHz machine or so. what duplex does it say? or does it not say? I'm still thinking duplex mismatch, though 20 something Mb is quite a bit for having a mismatch. You should be seeing: media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) in your ifconfig output. Exactly what are you seeing on that line? -cmb - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pfSense Support] Trying to setup pfsense with 3 WAN connections
Outgoing load balancing is not ready yet. On 8/19/05, Moacyr Leite da Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there, Need tips for outgoing load balance and source routing with pfsense and 2 and 3 WAN connections. I tryed to config this scenario com with 2 pfsense box and with 1 pfsense box. With 2 gateways and using pfSense-LiveCD-0.76.4.iso I could have failover work but without sync of pf and nat rules. Acctually when I put any firewall or nat rule I started to have Acknowledge messages. After I tryed 3 WAN connections in one box just to have source routing for inbound connection but it also doesnt work. Or to be fair, it works with WAN and not for OPT1 or OPT2. I need at least source routing for 3 WAN and 1 LAN, if possible outgoing load balance. Any tip or trick? rules.debug and config.xml is attached for your verify. My Best Regards, Thanks Moacyr - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pfSense Support] pfsense on flash
The embedded images lack video, keyboard and mouse support. Perhaps the best solution is to install using the cdrom installer to the compact flash directly then editing /etc/platform to read wrap. Scott On 8/19/05, Jamy Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I noticed there are images for running pfsense on a Soekris device. Is it possible to use this image on flash in a standard PC? I woul love to replace my monowall with PFSense. Thanks Jamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [pfSense Support] pfsense on flash
I just install from the cd straight onto the CF card and disable swap Then when it is setup is disable logs and forward to my syslog server works great The embedded images lack video, keyboard and mouse support. Perhaps the best solution is to install using the cdrom installer to the compact flash directly then editing /etc/platform to read wrap. Scott On 8/19/05, Jamy Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I noticed there are images for running pfsense on a Soekris device. Is it possible to use this image on flash in a standard PC? I woul love to replace my monowall with PFSense. Thanks Jamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[pfSense Support] There were error(s) loading the rules
Hello, I have some problems with pfSense 0.77. I got this message: php: : There were error(s) loading the rules: /tmp/rules.debug:110: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:111: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:112: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:113: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:114: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:115: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:116: syntax error pfctl: Syntax error in config file: pf rules not loaded - The line in question reads [110]: pass quick on rl0 proto esp from 172.16.0.72 to keep state label IPSEC: esp proto The Problem is now: The pfSense will nor route anylonger! From the LAN side it is possible to ping the WAN interface of the FW (172.16.0.72) but it is not possible to ping any other host (e.g. 172.16.0.71) in front of the WAN interface. Directly from the FW (via webinterface) it is possible to ping hosts in front of the WAN interface. What is going wrong? Regards Bastian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [pfSense Support] There were error(s) loading the rules
I agree this is still an issue in 0.77. It happens when you change the firewall rules. It does not matter what is in the ipsec setup. Wheather it is empty or you are using it -Original Message- From: Bastian Schern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 August 2005 18:56 To: support@pfsense.com Subject: [pfSense Support] There were error(s) loading the rules Hello, I have some problems with pfSense 0.77. I got this message: php: : There were error(s) loading the rules: /tmp/rules.debug:110: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:111: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:112: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:113: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:114: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:115: syntax error /tmp/rules.debug:116: syntax error pfctl: Syntax error in config file: pf rules not loaded - The line in question reads [110]: pass quick on rl0 proto esp from 172.16.0.72 to keep state label IPSEC: esp proto The Problem is now: The pfSense will nor route anylonger! From the LAN side it is possible to ping the WAN interface of the FW (172.16.0.72) but it is not possible to ping any other host (e.g. 172.16.0.71) in front of the WAN interface. Directly from the FW (via webinterface) it is possible to ping hosts in front of the WAN interface. What is going wrong? Regards Bastian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [pfSense Support] There were error(s) loading the rules
There are two ways to remake the error that I found. (1) create a new firewall rule and apply it. (2) to save the ipsec configuration (DOES NOT MATTER WHEATHER THERE IS ANYTHING IN IT OR NOT) this happened on at least 8 installs. Yes I agree you can clear the ipsec and reload the xml but if you do any of the above after that the issue comes back -Original Message- From: Scott Ullrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 August 2005 19:40 To: alan walters Cc: Bastian Schern; support@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] There were error(s) loading the rules On 8/19/05, alan walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree this is still an issue in 0.77. It happens when you change the firewall rules. It does not matter what is in the ipsec setup. Wheather it is empty or you are using it I disagree. I just changed a rule on my firewall at home and then REBOOTED it. All 5 of my tunnels are STILL fine. Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.4/66 - Release Date: 09/08/2005 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.4/66 - Release Date: 09/08/2005 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pfSense Support] There were error(s) loading the rules
On 8/19/05, alan walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are two ways to remake the error that I found. (1) create a new firewall rule and apply it. [click to toggle enabled/disabled status]* * * * * TestRule I added the rule above. No issues. (2) to save the ipsec configuration (DOES NOT MATTER WHEATHER THERE IS ANYTHING IN IT OR NOT) I just changed my ipsec. Again, no issues. The problem is either fixed on recent versions or this is not how to reliably reproduce it. Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[pfSense Support] Avoid 0.78!
Firmware upgrade bug lurks from within. I would avoid it at all costs. 0.79 will be published soon. Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
