Jump to content
Not connected, Your IP: 3.237.29.69

go558a83nk

Members2
  • Content Count

    1986
  • Joined

    ...
  • Last visited

    ...
  • Days Won

    31

go558a83nk last won the day on March 25 2022

go558a83nk had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About go558a83nk

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

  1. That's showing the latency to the Atlanta server is only 4ms
  2. |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | WinMTR statistics | | Host - % | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last | |------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | 10.128.0.1 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 8 | | 23.103.107.254 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | | Request timed out. - 100 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | be2978.ccr41.dfw03.atlas.cogentco.com - 0 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 9 | | be2763.ccr31.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com - 0 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | | be2441.ccr41.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com - 0 | 5 | 5 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | | be2687.ccr41.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com - 0 | 5 | 5 | 27 | 27 | 28 | 27 | | be2847.ccr41.atl04.atlas.cogentco.com - 0 | 5 | 5 | 28 | 28 | 29 | 28 | | ae0-49.cr1.atl1.us.unitasglobal.net - 0 | 5 | 5 | 26 | 26 | 26 | 26 | | 198.32.132.42 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 25 | 26 | 26 | | inap.cust.cr2.atl1.us.unitasglobal.net - 0 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 26 | | border2.ae1-bbnet1.acs.pnap.net - 0 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 35 | 74 | 25 | | usd-29.satedge2.acs.pnap.net - 0 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 25 | 27 | 25 | | core.atl.dedicated.com - 0 | 5 | 5 | 27 | 33 | 50 | 30 | | 64.42.179.58 - 0 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 25 | 26 | 26 | |________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______| WinMTR v1.00 GPLv2 (original by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider) no indication that the server isn't in atlanta to me. it's just that your ISP making your traffic to the server's network go the long way around somewhere. show us the mtr so we can see it ourselves.
  3. well, back when wireguard first came out as a package for pfsense I happened upon a youtube video from, I think, the guy who made the wireguard package while browsing the pfsense subreddit. but now when I search it's difficult to find that particular video. Sorry I can't be more help.
  4. Set it to exclusive, of course. But also check that your browser isn't using some built in "secure dns" which would be encrypted and thus bypass AirVPN's DNS.
  5. you need to use your devices page to make another device. download a new config for that new device. then when setting up the interface you'll need to change the net mask to /32 so that the two devices don't overlap IP range. https://airvpn.org/devices/
  6. I've always had good luck using "mssfix 0" actually. And Also setting tun-mtu to something crazy high so the virtual adapter isn't a bottleneck.
  7. setting the buffers to "0" just means the default for the OS, doesn't it? I'm thinking it needs to be bigger, not the default. Also, you might try messing with MTU/MSS stuff.
  8. and I wouldn't have even known that since I don't think I've ever seen that in pfsense
  9. you need to use iptables to create the proper rules on the asus router. see the following post.
  10. I'm pretty sure I followed a guide back when I first started using wireguard on pfsense...a guide made by the guy that made the wireguard add-on package. Anyway, I have gateway address set to the same as interface address. When creating the interface I have to put in the internal IP that's given to me in the config and the same one goes in the gateway.
  11. If I recall correctly the interface must be setup manually *and* then the gateway. So, no, it doesn't appear automatically.
  12. there may not be very many people here that run opnsense. I wish I could help but I'm still using pfsense.
  13. It seems that setting the mss and mtu for wireguard to the same value is the trick for many people
  14. I am concerned that with this matter the network lock isn't really working and that's why the OP gets leaks. (or maybe the OP wasn't using network lock traditionally?) You see, if network lock rules are created based on the wrong interface/network adapter (i.e. traffic can go through only the wrong adapter and no other) then it seems network lock and its rules will do no good anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...