Categories

  • 459 Topics
    1k Posts
    D
    Hi @Tyronejackson839, Thanks for the awesome advice! Your ACL tips worked perfectly—enabling fragment-checking and lean rules secured my nginx webserver without sacrificing performance. Really appreciate your detailed help! Best, David James | Founder of The Yes No Button!
  • 120k Topics
    765k Posts
    A
    @stephenw10 Ok. Makes sense I was advised by Tailscale support that I might need to establish NAT rules and a static route in pfsense if I wanted to force pfsense to use TS as a gateway for one of my other subnets on another one of my TS networks. If I know the TS address of my local network is 100.xxx.xxx.xxx Then how would you propose to establish that address as a gateway and then to use that address as a gateway for a static route for a subnet on an external 192.168.8.0/24 subnet (also on my TS network) ? (Other than the error the routing is occurring properly now) Here is communication from Tailscale support: Kelly replied: Hello, I’m Kelly from the Tailscale support team. Thanks for reaching out! What you’re seeing is a known side effect of how Tailscale handles routing when subnet routing is enabled, especially on routers like pfSense and GL.iNet. What’s happening is that Site B is advertising a subnet like 47.214.112.0/21, and that includes its own public IP (47.214.118.244). So when Site A tries to ping that public IP, Tailscale grabs the traffic and routes it through the tunnel instead of out the regular WAN unless you add a static route to force it out the normal way. That’s why disabling Tailscale or adding the route makes it work. It’s just a side effect of advertising too broad of a subnet. Totally fixable by narrowing the subnet route or adding a static WAN route for that IP. For the other issue of not being able to reach Site B’s LAN from Site A- I think this might be a NAT or routing issue: Make sure both routers are advertising their LANs and the routes are actually enabled in the Tailscale admin console. You might need outbound NAT rules on the routers to let traffic forward properly. If you’ve disabled SNAT with --snat-subnet-routes=false, you likely need return routes for Tailscale’s 100.64.0.0/10 space, which a lot of home routers won’t handle. In that case, you can just use MASQUERADE/NAT on the router to make it work. (Related doc here ) For Linux-based routers (like GL.iNet), this usually fixes it: iptables -A FORWARD -i tailscale0 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o tailscale0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE Just keep in mind that’ll rewrite the source IP to the router itself, which might not be ideal depending on what you’re doing. pfSense doesn’t support that SNAT flag (since it’s FreeBSD), so I think you have to rely on NAT/firewall rules or static routes to get things working cleanly. Let me know your thoughts on this, and if this helped. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
  • 20k Topics
    128k Posts
    A
    I have been experiencing this issue for a while now, so it is nice to know the cause! I updated the redmine and posted screenshots of the issue. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15274
  • 43k Topics
    267k Posts
    V
    @gtrdriver Hallo, auf A braucht das erst mal die Route zu B (VPN Gateway). Dazu musst du erst der VPN Instanz ein Interface zuweisen. Damit erhältst du auch ein Gateway, auf das geroutet werden kann. Das Routing sollte wohl mit einer Policy-Routing Firewall Regel gemacht werden. Hier kannst du bspw. den Traffic eine bestimmten Quelle oder zu einem bestimmten Ziel (im Alias definiert) oder beides routen. In den Advanced Options der Regel kann das Gateway angegeben werden. Die Regel muss ganz nach oben geschoben werden, damit sie vor andren zutrifft, die ausgehenden Traffic erlauben. Auf B brauchst du eine Outbound NAT Regel am WAN für die Quelle-IP (od. bspw. das A LAN Subnetz). Dafür muss du den Hybriden Mode aktivieren. Grüße
  • Information about hardware available from Netgate

    3k Topics
    20k Posts
    A
    @tariqali I know all too well the pain of having a 4100 or 6100 Base unexpectedly die after 2 years, so at least you got 4 years from your 6100 Max! I am glad you were able to get it up and running again. Nice write-up on the repair! Was this also posted on Reddit? I think I responded to your post and linked you to these forums for this issue.
  • Information about hardware available from Netgate

    44 Topics
    211 Posts
    AriKellyA
    It looks like unified web management could be coming soon. It would be great if it means easier control and management of all web services in one place. Let's see if any companies announce more details about it!
  • Feel free to talk about anything and everything here

    3k Topics
    19k Posts
    johnpozJ
    @Popolou well that is recent for sure.. I don't recall putting that in - maybe?? Fixed now it seems which is the good thing. Thanks for bringing to attention.
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.