Ad Schellevis
Ad Schellevis
It might be better to share the full settings (replacing private data)
snippets from the config for the relevant parts are likely best.
I don't think this has anything todo with wireguard to be honest, your wan is `xxx.yyy.zzz.242/29`, the next hop is `xxx.yyy.zzz.241` according to the gateways, but has a "far gateway"...
This lies somewhat beyond community support scope for me, the use of proxy arp entries is not very common to be honest, when these proxy entries actually lie within the...
which forum topic was that? just interested if I see something obvious in relation to your issue
well, if `xxx.yyy.zzz.244` lies inside the wan network, an alias is more logical in my humble opinion. After adding an alias, I would try to ping from that source address...
The missing outbound nat might be a bug introduced by https://github.com/opnsense/core/commit/6ea9d216e2a717c594f2a95568bda7366dfea4d2 , we're looking into alternatives as this is likely a side affect and the reload shouldn't be needed at...
this would lead to overlapping rules, which pf probably just chooses one from. You would notice the rule in: ``` grep 10.10.10.100 /tmp/rules.debug ``` Then nat only shows one: ```...
on my end I can't reproduce the `rules.debug` being different, there's no deduplication in that code on our end. looking at the ruleset, same spec matching two targets, it does...
@Self-Hosting-Group https://github.com/opnsense/core/commit/e64b71d5af897db03ab7a3b07c429ee68fc1f2de should fix your issue.