• VOIP and NAT questions

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    938 Views
    C

    I don't have the answers to your questions, sorry.

    But I have a very similar problem and my setup is almost identical, I can get SIP and RTP working without issue on one VoIP carrier but another carrier I don't get any inbound RTP, they can be seen in the pcap from the WAN interface but they never exit the LAN interface.  Checking the SIP packets and the ports used for RTP that are defined they fit within the NAT'ed and allows range of ports, there is no message of dropped packets in the firewall logs.

    It seems like the inbound RTP packets just get lost in the kernel or something like that, I though it might have been just my hardware or setup, but I tried it on a fresh install on server hardware at work and had the same issue.  I did an install of OpenBSD with a similar ruleset and the problem didn't exist anymore, so it doesn't seem to be a hardware issue but something specific to pfSense or the FreeBSD kernel.

    I have tried manual outbound NAT, changing many tuning parameters but nothing seems to work.

    I'm not sure how I can troubleshoot this issue further but there ceratinly seems to be something wrong with pfSense in this regard.

  • NAT Outbound for Exchange server

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    738 Views
    No one has replied
  • Redirected spontaneously to a different port number on wan interface

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    1k Views
    R

    Tnx podilarius,

    i rebooted the machine.

    I tried to simulate this behavior again, now I cannot reproduce this problem.
    Now I hope that the client have no problems any more. If so?  I let you know.

  • I am sure this is something simple I am missing…

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    662 Views
    P

    Is the server responding with the internal address? If so, this is a redirect in the server that is causing an issue. Websites should be setup with DNS name for redirects or better, with logical redirects. You will need to determine where the response is originating from … the server, or pfsense.

  • Siproxy drops RTP after 20-30s

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    816 Views
    No one has replied
  • Comprehension question: NAT plus Squid3

    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    3k Views
    johnpozJ

    And who are you?  The OP was named paulfred.. As to looking at the settngs - well if its not performing the task the OP wanted is prob because he set it up wrong, or it doesn't even do what he thinks it can do.  Some clear understanding of what he did, or thinks he did wold be helpful in trying to figure out if it would work or not even.

    He mentions he followed a guide, but never even links to the what guide..

  • NAT HAVP-proxy

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    759 Views
    No one has replied
  • External access Pfsence

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    739 Views
    P

    I would setup a port forward in NAT to relay inbound traffic to WAN address port 20000 to 192.168.1.9 on port 20000 (I am guessing TCP).

  • Port Forward Cloudtrax clients

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    2k Views
    No one has replied
  • NAT Only if client from DNS

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    704 Views
    GruensFroeschliG

    There is no way around a reverse http proxy.
    Search the forum for "reverse http proxy".

    This might be what you are looking for:
    https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Haproxy_package

  • Routing destination IP through a specific wan

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    A

    Thanks a lot

  • Multiple Lans not accessing the internet

    12
    0 Votes
    12 Posts
    6k Views
    johnpozJ

    "In class we learned the limitations of windows and routing and saw that after 3 linear subnets that we need to manually modify the routing table. "

    I am curious on this statement of yours – What exactly is that suppose to mean?  Why would you need to create a manual route?

  • Manual Outbound NAT Does Not Work

    19
    0 Votes
    19 Posts
    5k Views
    P

    @stephenw10:

    Yes 'LAN subnet'. It's displayed as 'LAN net' in the rule table. Confusing.  ;)

    There have been enough queries about this inconsistency, I bit the bullet and submitted a pull request to make it all say "LAN net", "WAN net" rather than using "subnet" in some places:
    https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/pull/902
    Took only a few minutes to make the changes, we will all save more time than that in answering queries.

  • [SOLVED]No Internet Acess on Virtual IP address

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    967 Views
    E

    Thanks Solved for me =)

  • [SOLVED]Transparent Proxy for Virtual Ips Aliases

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    769 Views
    E

    NAT > Outbound > Select Manual
    Create a rule to virtual ip network =)

  • Pfsense as web proxy?

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    1k Views
    T

    Er, that's what it's designed for. Read about how it works, and try it out.

  • Nat Exempt Issue

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    2k Views
    stephenw10S

    So the default outbound NAT rule (when it's set to auto) catches all traffic from the LAN subnet and NATs it. If you switch to manual you can change the destination to something like '!WAN subnet' such that it will still NAT traffic for anything beyond the ASA LAN. However clients in the ASA LAN (pfSense WAN) subnet will still not have a route back to the pfSense LAN subnet.
    I've not tried to setup anything like this but I would suggest that disabling NAT entirely will probably be easier to work with than having it partially enabled.

    Steve

  • Bug? pfsense sends ISAKMP IKE_AUTH (udp 4500) packets out without NAT

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    842 Views
    No one has replied
  • TLD Forwarding to Dyndns is being blocked

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    822 Views
    B

    johnpoz, thanks for the reply.

    I ended up resolving this issue by changing the NAT reflection from 'System Default' to 'Pure NAT'.

  • How to configure access to web server running on openvpn tunnel

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    693 Views
    No one has replied
Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.