You should shut down NAT to make the clients at LAN1 and LAN2 see each other by it's local IP (go to firewall>nat, outbound, enable advanced outbound nat and delete all custom mappings). Set the gateway at pfsense1 link1-1 to pfsense2 link1-2 (WAN). Same procedure for the OPT1 there (with according settings). You also should add some pass any rules to all interfaces. Then at pfSense create a gatewaypool consisting of link1-1, link2-2. Use this pool as gateway for the lan rule at pfSense1. Set this up vice versa at pfSense 2. Oh, and disable block local subnets at both wan interfaces. I hope that makes some sense and I haven't forgotten anything. I would be interested if that actually works. Give some feedback  ;D

I got the settings…. but for 1 WAN.... Only WAN works and not OPT1 (with the same routing settings) Can somebody give an example what i have to do to route incoming info to a OPT1 port? Thank you.

I'm wandering if this can be done OK with pfsense too. Hoba suggests yes. I have a webserver that I need (temporarily at least) to be accessible from internet via either WAN connection. My first effort was with a commercial dual WAN router = no go (with the OPT connection up port forwarding on primary WAN stopped working!) Then I tried putting a 2nd nic in the server with 2 routers and that didn't work (I couldn't figure out how to get traffic to go out on the gateway matching incoming connection!) so I am hoping pfsense will work. If I do this do this and create 2 X NAT portforwards for 80 > webserver one FROM OPT and one from WAN or just one rule with ANY and are there any other things I should watch out for? Thanks!

You must have arp/IP conflicts of some kind I'm pretty sure not. you have misconfigured something wrong But I could easily imagine that to be so  ;)

As it is/was a state issue have a look at firewall optimizations at system>advanced. "Aggressive" might be worth a shot too (additional to the larger statelimit). It will help keeping the amount of states lower than with the default optimizations. You even can finetune this by using the advanced options that hide behind advanced buttons when you edit a firewallrule to set statelimits/timeouts per port, per source, destination…whatever.

Yes it work fine with this option activated. Thanks ! regards, ronan.

When using loadbalancing you won't see the pfSense in a traceroute. It's forwarded firectly to the upstream gateway of the interface. This is normal and no evidence that pfSense doesn't work. Can be as well be your upstream gateway on that interface or something else. Not sure what to  say besides make sure you are on the latest snaphsot and maybe restart the configuration from scratch. You must have something wrong. Even if that link is down and your monitoring is set up correctly it should work as this link then gets excluded automatically within 5 seconds.

Good to hear  :D

You got the idea  :D

Thank you for your reply. What i mean with firewall rules don't working after loadbalancing, i mean: I tryed to portforward like your example and that doesn't work. Anyway i also tryed the loadbalancing but it isn't what i expected (like the traffic shaper doesn't work with more then 2 lan/wan's) But maybe a stupid question can you made for me a (example) config file with the next features: Dual Wan IP 10.1.1.10 gateway 10.1.1.1 IP 192.168.1.4 gateway 192.168.1.1 Single lan IP 10.10.0.1 DHCP With firewall rules : Incoming: port 21 on gateway 10.1.1.10 goto lan ip 10.10.0.20 RDP client on gateway 192.168.1.1 goto lan ip 10.10.0.20 Outgoing: port 80 from lan ip 10.10.0.20 works with gateway 10.1.1.10 Port 80 from lan ip 10.10.0.21 works with gateway 192.168.1.1 Why? becuase i tryed this but it doesn't work after using the loadbalacing settings. Thank you!

its not so much a pppoa problem, as pppoe works as well.

Backup/Restore is the only way to do this atm. Backuparea "Interfaces" should be enough for this.

Make sure you monitor IPs actually respond to pings.

run "top" at diagnostics>command. Show us the output to see what process is using up the CPU.

Depending on your needs grab a 10/100 or 10/100/1000. Intel cards are supported pretty good by freebsd. If you don't have need for a multiportcard you should be able to get them for small money.

Have you tried VIP type carp already?

Not really, this is all traffic on port 80/http. There is no proxy that is inspecting the packets to make a difference here. Also a single connection can only run at a single WAN, so unless you use a downloadmanager it won't help you with a single client and a single download. Multiple downloads or multiple clients of course can take advantage of the loadbalancing. Please search the forum on how the multiwan does the loadbalancing. It has been extensively discussed before.

You have to make the clients to connect to different public IPs. This is not what pfSense calls inbound loadbalancing. Inbound is distributing requests that come in on one interface to multiple servers. What you need is making the clients use different WANs (public IPs) to connect to. You need a DNS-Server that resolves the DNS for the terminalserver each time to the next of your wan IPs. pfSense can handle different WANs but it can't do the job of the DNS that resolves the requests. You need a DNS solution for this on top of your multiwan pfSense.

From your original post your LAN and WAN is the same subnet and even interface IPs are the same IP. @Sulti: LAN IP: 10.100.1.1/24 WAN IP: 10.100.1.1/24 OPT1 as WAN2 IP: 10.100.2.1/24 Besides that I don't see a problem with your setup unless you have some typos somewhere.

@hoba: Btw, you want to abuse your neighbours unsecured wireless accesspoint as additional wan?  ;D OH NO, not me! That would be wrong. :-X