Yes, that is another option if you can reliably identify all the traffic.

My laptop is wire connected to the same switch. And an another router makes the Wi-Fi. I have some problems here, but first I need to set up my laptop connection.

The only thing that will be effective there is WANGroup. It will match all traffic. The other rules will never be hit. As is evidenced by the traffic counters on them. If you want different behavior, delete the other two rules.

Because they are covering all the bases. You only need one failover group to get one failover behavior (ie WAN1 (Tier 1) to WAN2 (Tier 2)).

Thanks. I originally chose "General" as this is a crossover topic - both DYN and multi-wan. My question is more about DYN, but your answer was spot-on! :)

That's called policy routing https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/What_is_policy_routing https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi-WAN#Policy_Route_Negation

nope just change the wan interface to static vs dhcp.

What version are you running? On 2.3/2.4, dpinger doesn't immediately bring the gateway back up on the first successful ping, it has to return to below-threshold levels before it is considered 'up'. If it's not stable when it's within the configured parameters, fix the configured parameters to suit your circuit.

Problem here is that I do not just need public IP's behind the firewall. For ip 1.2.3.4 there needs to be forwarding based on port 1, but there needs to be natting based on port 2 So just forwarding all packet destined for ip 1.2.3.4 is not going to work because I´m missing out on nat then for this very same ip. PS: Tried to take a screenshot, but even this cannot be pasted into a reply.

I see. Thanks

Well then there's no problem with that. (Would stronly suggest to exclude the servers from Squid.)

I've determined the cause of the issue - I had my Outbound NAT set to MANUAL, set it to Automatic to allow outbound requests to generate rules automatically (thread I found the solution on is below) https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=122354.0 Sorry for taking up the space!

Yes u could use a common transit for all your routers

@JKnott: cisco loopback0 for GRE tunnel is useful since it act as logical interface and GRE tunnel source could use loopback0 interface IP. How could I do that on pfsense? Any reason you can't use the standard 127.0.0.1 & ::1 loopbacks? logical interface IP is different than localhost IP, you can't use 127.0.0.1 on GRE tunnel setting.

@andipandi: WAN interface should have no leases at all? I don't see any error in the config you posted. You should check the subnet masks on your clients, they should be set to 255.255.255.0. Also, you should check your WiFi router, since this is the only interface that causes issues, perhaps it is that piece of hardware that has its own configuration wrong. Probably you can read some more from the firewall logs, they also tell you what traffic is blocked. If you just want LAN, LAN2 and WIFI_AP to be one large net, you could also just bridge them. (I think then you have to adjust the subnet mask again to include all nets.) I apologize for not enough a clear description of the problem. WAN, WAN2, WIFI interfaces receive leases from the ISP and operating normally. WIFI interface is Atheros AR2417 adapter. Subnet masks really 255.255.255.0. No additional WIFI router is not used, the access point is implemented by means of pfsense WIFI adapter Ralink RT2561S, if it is important. The firewall logs nothing about blocking packets from the LAN to WIFI_AP, which is strange. The experimental purposes, I tried to combine all three interfaces in a bridge, in this case, the problem disappears, but I need independent subnet. As I see it (maybe I'm wrong) the problem is in routing with WIFI_AP NIC. Thanks