NAT

• 

  Voip with NAT
  • marciourakawa

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  104
  Views

  No one has replied

• N

  TCP retransmission
  • nchrissos

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  126
  Views

  No one has replied

• M

  Port forwarding stopped working
  • MrGrimod

  10
  0
  Votes
  10
  Posts
  251
  Views

  M

  Ok, I found the problem. It was the internet gateway or upstream(as you said). I reinstalled the OS and the exposed host function worked again. For some reason it still shows 0 opened port, but hey it works! Thanks for your quick and professional help!
• Y

  Having problems redirecting ports with NAT
  • YamiFrankc

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  145
  Views

  

  Your rules have to pass traffic to 192.168.1.11 not WAN Address. Not sure how you ended up there considering you have Add associated filter rule selected and it most certainly would not create a rule like that.
• L

  Question about reflection
  • laeuchli

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  134
  Views

  No one has replied

• T

  SIP traffic getting hijacked by router
  • totalimpact

  7
  0
  Votes
  7
  Posts
  173
  Views

  

  If you are interested I can provide a secure upload link outside of the forum. I generally like to see the exact rules that cause unexpected behavior. Kind of like seeking closure and understanding.
• J

  AWS 1:1 NAT
  • joshuamichaelsanders

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  181
  Views

  J

  @derelict appreciate the response. A second reading of your comment straightened me out. Your kind hand holding has earned netgate a customer!
• M

  TCP doesn't work through 1:1 virtual IP
  • Mars

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  162
  Views

  

  How about you pose all of those screenshots instead. @mars said in TCP doesn't work through 1:1 virtual IP: 1:1 Virtual IP to LAN IP 192.168.7.100 Outbond 192.168.7.0/24 * * * Virtual IP public * I do not know why you would do this. 1:1 means just that. 1:1. It looks like you are also trying to outbound NAT the whole /24 to the same VIP which should work fine. But I honestly do not know what would happen in that case. @mars said in TCP doesn't work through 1:1 virtual IP: WAN rules IPv4 TCP/UDP * * ->LAN Net * * This also makes little sense.. You should be passing traffic to 192.168.7.100, not LAN net.
• E

  Cannot resolve locally hosted tld's when connected to Openvpn
  • eskimoroll345

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  110
  Views

  E

  Enabling NAT Reflection fixed my issue.
• K

  NAT for transparent Solved
  • killmasta93

  7
  0
  Votes
  7
  Posts
  381
  Views

  K

  Thanks that did the trick on the shared frontend had to add that and on the redirect to HTTPS sections Thank you so much
• G

  UPNP glitch when adding VPN
  • gtapro151

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  123
  Views

  No one has replied

• C

  PBX NEC Sv8100 nat 5060 port
  • charneval

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  249
  Views

  C

  I found the solution with this rules :  Thanks ... Andrea
• V

  Port forward issue
  • valnurat

  21
  0
  Votes
  21
  Posts
  505
  Views

  V

  @johnpoz said in Port forward issue: @valnurat said in Port forward issue: I have been told that I can't do a port forwarding if I don't have a static IP. Is that true? Where exactly are you getting this nonsense?? In our community where I live.
• T

  [Solved]pfSense 2.4.3 Port Forwarding problem
  • Tommaso

  19
  0
  Votes
  19
  Posts
  1135
  Views

  T

  Ok, i don't know what happened but i switched the WAN interface with another physical interface and it started working. At this point i thank you for helping me so much and i'll mark this thread as solved.
• O

  Pfsense blocking Dynamic DNS
  • ovidius

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  179
  Views

  O

  The only thing I want to do is access pfsense homepage remotely by using dynamic dns. Nothing else. Please tell me what specifics you mean
• E

  Adding more hosts to ALIAS used in rule doesn't work. BUG?
  • elkato

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  133
  Views

  

  IS this a bug? Probably not. Countless people do the same thing. You'll probably have to give a more-specific example including screen shots, contents of the Alias/table (Diagnostics > Tables) before and after the new address addition, the port forward, firewall rule, etc.
• B

  Redirection Traffic
  • Big_Bill

  21
  0
  Votes
  21
  Posts
  394
  Views

  

  NAT : https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/nat/forwarding-ports-with-pfsense.html DNS : Start here https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/dns/unbound-dns-resolver.html
• S

  1:1 NAT not working. Replacing Checkpoint with Pfsense
  • Su30MKI

  19
  0
  Votes
  19
  Posts
  471
  Views

  

  You can for sure limit the source to your actual source out on the internet to get to this host your sending the nat too.. But if your putting in your actual wan IP, then as Derelict has stated - that is never going to work.
• C

  Pfsense Port Forwarding issue behind Uverse Modem
  • cewjr9842

  12
  0
  Votes
  12
  Posts
  406
  Views

  C

  @napsterbater Thanks napsterbater. I was just trying to RDP/3389 as my first step to testing port forwarding on the pfsense router before adding any other ports but I didn't know that at&t was so sh***y to the point where they would block a passthrough/supposed DMZ'ed IP address to allow all items to that one address, but I should have known better. I wish another ISP was available in my location, i would leave them with the quickness. But to have to add port forwarding in my pfsense and then port forwarding in the Uverse gateway, is ludicrous and makes no sense for a DMZ'ed address. Thanks again fro the suggestion and I appreciate you alls time and help on this!
• S

  Force internal ip to connect to local service externally
  • Shadowsong

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  164
  Views

  

  @shadowsong said in Force internal ip to connect to local service externally: I connect directly to IP:Port, so DNS is not possible. I never really understand such an answer - are you saying this IP and port are HARD CODED? That is borked! Or that you just have not setup a fqdn to resolve.. Do you not have access to the dns server your clients talk to?
• H

  Port Forwarding on a Double NAT system
  • hthuong09

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  385
  Views

  No one has replied

• L

  Port forwarding: Timeout
  • leof.22

  16
  0
  Votes
  16
  Posts
  374
  Views

  

  take it that 100 is really a 10 and that just a typo ;) Glad you got it sorted
• T

  Strange behaviour with an IPSec tunnel (site-to-site) and Outbound NAT
  • TomS

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  116
  Views

  No one has replied

• 

  New ISP, port forwarding working intermittently
  • anstosa

  10
  0
  Votes
  10
  Posts
  293
  Views

  

  Well the sniff will prove it too them..
• S

  1:1 NAT with IIS and multiple subdomains / websites
  iis • • solutionwerx

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  157
  Views

  S

  I started this but its long and got distracted with some other people trying to help. A Beloved Freenode user says, I JUST WENT THROUGH ALL THIS. Pfsense does not pass headers with NAT and you have to use haproxy to assist. The channel went ballistic on pfsense saying that is rather stupid and down right ridiculous pfsense does this and that NAT is layer 3 based and it should pass the packets unaltered. Guess im watching this whole video. :P
• J

  1:1 NAT not BINATing
  • jranderson100

  6
  0
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  306
  Views

  J

  Solved! Since I'm a newbie to pfSense, I made a simple mistake. The 1:1 NAT was fine, but in my manual firewall rule I entered the public IP rather than the DMZ IP. Everything is working now include BINAT. Thanks for your help and patience!
• 

  Accessing modem netwok from inside firewall (Bridge Mode)
  • Soloam

  8
  0
  Votes
  8
  Posts
  395
  Views

  

  In such a case you should be able to access the 192.168.1.x/24 IP from 192.168.3.x/24 because pfsense would nat your 192.168.3.x traffic to pfsense IP address in 192.168.1 If you do not nat this then yes you would run into a problem. You have to make sure you setup outbound nat on the 192.168.1 interface so that traffic coming from 192.168.3 is natted to the 192.168.1 address of pfsense in that network. You would also need to make sure your not forcing your lan traffic out your specific wan dhcp gateway (ie your public connection). You need to leave the gateway on your lan as default or put a policy route above it to use your 192.168.1 interface when wanting to go to 192.168.1
• J

  Issue with Outbound NAT using Network and Broadcast addresses
  • jeanfpoulin

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  158
  Views

  J

  Thank you Derelict. The Host Alias feature is doing exactly what I need and want it to. Guess I had missed it when reading through the documentation.
• R

  1 to 1 NAT for LAN subnet to WAN
  • robina80

  18
  0
  Votes
  18
  Posts
  427
  Views

  

  Once you have a tunnel there is no need for 1:1 nat or any nat.. The tunnel is used to route the traffic to get to your network.. The whole POINT to a vpn.. If you were going to create a tunnel - there is zero reason not to encrypt it because its going over the public internet.
• A

  TorGuard / Port Forward / Adding VPN
  • Animosity022

  5
  0
  Votes
  5
  Posts
  292
  Views

  A

  So one more oddity in the whole process. If I reboot, the port forward stops working. To get it working again, I simply just re-apply the firewall rules with no changes to them and it works again. Is there a way to capture a before / after that would assist in figuring out why it isn't working on the reboot?
• F

  Cannot port forward: "not a valid redirect target port. It must be a port alias or integer between 1 and 65535"
  pfsense nat redirect target port forward p • • FreddyH

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  393
  Views

  F

  @gertjan said in Cannot port forward: "not a valid redirect target port. It must be a port alias or integer between 1 and 65535": @freddyh said in Cannot port forward: "not a valid redirect target port. It must be a port alias or integer between 1 and 65535": The selections made under NAT/Port Forward/Edit; the rest left at pfsense default Interface: WAN Protocol: TCP Destination: WAN Destination port range: 443 Redirect target IP: 192.168.2.100 Strange, your are omitting the "Redirect target port" field. It should be Redirect target port : 443 en then pfSense will accept your NAT rules : Gertjan Thanks so much. Problem solved. Its the small things that are overlooked. Its been a crap day solving problems that I didnt even see that one. Appreciated!
• F

  Can't reach internal web server
  nat • • fendy

  16
  0
  Votes
  16
  Posts
  516
  Views

  

  Also where did you come up with this 200.10.1 ?? That is not rfc1918 space.. Its owned by inetnum: 200.10.0/22 owner: Administradora BANCHILE de Fondos Mutuos Country: CL You do not just pull space out of thin air and try and use it, even if behind a nat. Your HOME Network should be using rfc1918 space..
• P

  Pfsense missing return packets during NAT
  • PetersonG17

  18
  0
  Votes
  18
  Posts
  402
  Views

  

  When the reply packet was received by the firewall it had no route in the routing table for the destination so it returned Destination Unreachable.
• V

  1:1 NAT with Firewall
  • valamas

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  185
  Views

  

  Going to need a much more detailed description of what you have done and what you expect to happen. Screenshots would probably help.
• B

  I am using pfSense firewall, but...
  • Boone

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  191
  Views

  

  @sammartin8935 said in I am using pfSense firewall, but...: to protect you from viruses and other security threats, in the end you will still need a good antivirus and VPN Needs a VPN why exactly? Sorry but your typical user does not need a vpn..
• A

  NAT on "LAN" interface
  • Ahira

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  168
  Views

  A

  For whatever funky reason, a reboot fixed this issue. Looks like the allow any any rules were not being loaded correctly.
• T

  NAT via IPSec VPN
  firewall vpn nat ipsec routing n • • tompark

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  187
  Views

  T

  I stand corrected! ~Mat
• 

  Plex Server (192.168.30.8) <--> Roku (192.168.31.4)?
  • TAC57

  5
  0
  Votes
  5
  Posts
  232
  Views

  

  yeah you should have primate domain setup as well, but you also wan to set your networks as lan as above in my pic. I would not suggest you disaable rebind protection, but setting specific domain as private is easy https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/dns/dns-rebinding-protections.html
• S

  NAT done to VIP But SSH connection not working
  • Su30MKI

  5
  0
  Votes
  5
  Posts
  199
  Views

  

  You are probably going to have to post exactly what you want to do. https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/nat/forwarding-ports-with-pfsense.html https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/nat/port-forward-troubleshooting.html
• M

  Outbound NAT problem on Multi WAN setup
  • miboco

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  200
  Views

  

  You do not need to disable any outbound NAT. If the traffic from the mail server leaves WAN2 (or whatever your failover WAN is called), it will not hit NAT rules on WAN, only NAT rules on WAN2.