NAT

• A

  cPanel NAT
  • alishbah  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  40
  Views

  No one has replied

• P

  Allow DMZ to access second IPsec site
  • PL-EPI  

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  26
  Views

  P

  I do have it set up with a second Phase 2. I just thought there could be a better way to achieve the same result without having to go through each of the sites and adding a P2.
• C

  External access to the hikvision IP camera
  • cristiann  

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  49
  Views

  C

  Thanks viragomann, How good it is to have an external view. It was the captive portal blocking outbound Thank you very much
• D

  NAT logging original destination
  • dabbelju007  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  21
  Views

  No one has replied

• N

  dose pfsense have soft NAT
  • NKOADMIN  

  9
  0
  Votes
  9
  Posts
  115
  Views

  N

  @NKOADMIN said in dose pfsense have soft NAT: @NKOADMIN After read the Netgate Docs I think I need to configure the Routing Public IP Addresses instead of NAT. I will give it a try, will post result here. Yes, Routing Public IP Addresses resolve my issue. now we got the correct result in Mxtoolbox Thanks everyone
• R

  No remote LAN Access and Internet after connecting to the VPN
  • rameshkumar  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  38
  Views

  No one has replied

• M

  IPSEC VPN terminating on pfSense - LAN transit network to internal LAN
  • mstreet  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  39
  Views

  No one has replied

• M

  Azure Internet not working
  • mukeshravji  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  31
  Views

  No one has replied

• S

  PORT FORWARD NOT WORKING IN AZURE CLOUD SINGLE NIC PFSENSE FIREWEALL
  • sandeepvkm  

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  30
  Views

  S

  @Gertjan said in PORT FORWARD NOT WORKING IN AZURE CLOUD SINGLE NIC PFSENSE FIREWEALL: port 22,80 and 443 port 22,80 and 443 not working, bcz I'm Only forwarded port 3389 for testing.
• M

  NATting with Manual Outbound NAT not working
  nat port forwarding open vpn • • mystic_sage  

  7
  0
  Votes
  7
  Posts
  92
  Views

  M

  You are 100% correct sir! That was the problem indeed, thanks for pointing that out!
• W

  NAT Reflection blocked by firewall
  • W5Ofwur1xtOmtk9ZBO  

  6
  0
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  64
  Views

  T

  DNS rebinding and protection for it is something else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_rebinding It sounds to me like you'll need to get your PC resolving the hostname to the LAN IP of the web server. (or the WAN of the pfSense, but you might as well just use the internal IP at that point)
• S

  NAT Reflection on the WAN interface (packet with WAN IP as source)
  • squintgod  

  6
  0
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  61
  Views

  S

  @viragomann I think that's what NAT is on pf, DNAT is rdr (change destination ip and keep source). If I create an outbound rule, the resulting pf rule in /tmp/rules.debug is: nat on $LAN inet proto tcp from LAN_NET/16 to LAN_IP/32 port 22 -> WAN_IP/32 port 1024:65535 Which doesn't work. Interestingly, if I change the mask of the translation address to WAN_IP/24, it works, but the last octet of the public ip will be wrong (it will round robin over that /24 net). It also works if I set the translation IP to any other IP in the WAN_NET except the actual WAN_IP.
• J

  This topic is deleted!
  • Johnson12  

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  17
  Views
• M

  Pfsense 2.4.4 NAT not working
  • mcardoso  

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  126
  Views

  

  Delete 1,,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. There are useless. Normally, on a WAN interface you have no rules at all. Exception : NAT rules .... Rule 9 is part of a NAT rule ? There should be a "from port" as there is a "To port", the 59045. Do not edit the firewall rule, edit the NAT rule. What are you trying to achiueve with these WAN firewall rules ? The NAT rule is for what ?
• E

  NAT rTorrent Issues
  • EC28  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  27
  Views

  No one has replied

• I

  NATting WAN>OpenVPN>Web Server - Working Intermittently
  • ITBoneHead  

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  42
  Views

  I

  I figured it out. Initially, the packet below would travel correcly, like so: REQUEST: Client -> Site B WAN -> Site A Webserver RESPONSE: Site A Webserver -> Site B WAN -> Client Occasianally, this would happen: REQUEST: Client -> Site B WAN -> Site A Webserver RESPONSE: Site A Webserver -> Site A WAN -> Lost/dropped packet The packet is going out the wrong WAN, thus getting dropped See diagram: +-----------------+---------------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+ | Internet | Site A | Site B | Internet | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Packet | | <-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ +---+ | +---+ | +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+-----+ | | | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+----+ | | + | | WAN | | | | OPENVPN | | WAN | | | | 1.1.1.1 +---+ +---+ | +---+ 2.2.2.2 +---+ | | | Web pfsense | pfsense | Client | | | Server 10.0.1.0/24 | 10.0.2.0/24 | | | | 10.0.1.100 | | | | | | | | +-----------------+---------------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+ Site B NAT +-----------+----------+----------------+--------------+---------------+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+ | Interface | Protocol | Source Address | Source Ports | Dest. Address | Dest. Ports | NAT IP | NAT Ports | Description | +-----------+----------+----------------+--------------+---------------+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+ | WAN | TCP | * | * | WAN address | 443 (HTTPS) | 10.0.1.100 | 443 (HTTPS) | Site B Internet to Site A Webserver | +-----------+----------+----------------+--------------+---------------+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+ Site B Outbound (Source) NAT +-----------+--------+-------------+---------------+------------------+-----------------+----------+-------------+-------------+---------+ | Interface | Source | Source Port | Destination | Destination Port | NAT Address | NAT Port | Static Port | Description | Actions | +-----------+--------+-------------+---------------+------------------+-----------------+----------+-------------+-------------+---------+ | OpenVPN | any | * | 10.0.1.100/32 | 443 (HTTPS) | OpenVPN address | 443 | | | | +-----------+--------+-------------+---------------+------------------+-----------------+----------+-------------+-------------+---------+ Site A Firewall Rules OpenVpn Interface (interface not assigned) +--------+----------+--------+------+----------------+------+---------+-------+----------+-------------+---------+ | States | Protocol | Source | Port | Destination | Port | Gateway | Queue | Schedule | Description | Actions | +--------+----------+--------+------+----------------+------+---------+-------+----------+-------------+---------+ | 0 /0 B | IPv4 * | * | * | SITE_A_LAN net | * | * | none | | | | +--------+----------+--------+------+----------------+------+---------+-------+----------+-------------+---------+ The fix was to assign Site A's OpenVPN connection as an interface and create the firewall rule there instead. Also, you no longer need a Source NAT at Site B. The combination of rules to get the packet routing back to Site B's WAN consistently is below: +-----------------+---------------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+ | Internet | Site A | Site B | Internet | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Packet | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---+ +---+ | +---+ | +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+-----+ | | | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+----+ | | v + | | WAN | | | | OPENVPN | | WAN | | | | 1.1.1.1 +---+ +---+ | +---+ 2.2.2.2 +---+ | | | Web pfsense | pfsense | Client | | | Server 10.0.1.0/24 | 10.0.2.0/24 | | | | 10.0.1.100 | | | | | | | | +-----------------+---------------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+ Site B NAT +-----------+----------+----------------+--------------+---------------+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+ | Interface | Protocol | Source Address | Source Ports | Dest. Address | Dest. Ports | NAT IP | NAT Ports | Description | +-----------+----------+----------------+--------------+---------------+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+ | WAN | TCP | * | * | WAN address | 443 (HTTPS) | 10.0.1.100 | 443 (HTTPS) | Site B Internet to Site A Webserver | +-----------+----------+----------------+--------------+---------------+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------------------------------+ Site A Firewall Rules OpenVpn Interface (assigned interface) +--------+----------+--------+------+----------------+------+---------+-------+----------+-------------+---------+ | States | Protocol | Source | Port | Destination | Port | Gateway | Queue | Schedule | Description | Actions | +--------+----------+--------+------+----------------+------+---------+-------+----------+-------------+---------+ | 0 /0 B | IPv4 * | * | * | SITE_A_LAN net | * | * | none | | | | +--------+----------+--------+------+----------------+------+---------+-------+----------+-------------+---------+
• H

  traffic inside ipsec vpn tunnel need SNAT ?
  • Hoygen83  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  12
  Views

  No one has replied

• G

  ACME + HAProxy only reachable from WAN
  • GleDel  

  6
  0
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  42
  Views

  P

  Haproxy can receive traffic on the pfsense-wan ip that comes from a internal network just fine (normally at least, maybe if its a ppp interface that could change things.).. Using split-dns tricks isn't needed either.. I do agree that opening the admin page of a consumer NAS to the world-wide-web wouldn't be advisable. (Perhaps if you secure it by using client-certificates it would be okay..) For this purpose listening on a lan-ip with a specific frontend could be nice to have some separation.. As for why it doesn't currently work.. thats pretty much impossible to tell without some more information about what you did and didn't configure.. Perhaps sharing a haproxy.cfg from bottom of settings tab would help us help you..? Or telling something about your network layout / subnets / IPs used for client / pfSense / NAS.
• 

  1:1 NAT some ips not working.
  • mrcha0s  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  52
  Views

  No one has replied

• B

  Policy routing with NAT.
  • bakerjw  

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  48
  Views

  B

  Ok.. Got it. I was assigning DNS entries from my PFSense box which was using NordVPN DNS servers. I plugged in my ISP DNS entries and voila'... All is good now.
• S

  I Broke NAT... on my Multi Site Lab.
  • steve1399  

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  34
  Views

  S

  Trying Manual Outbound NAT also. I found that rules weren't created so I found out that I didn't have a gateway set, once set the rules populated. So now I'm back and can ping out to the WAN gateway but The rule that should disable NAT for source 192.168.1.0 dest 192.168.2.0 doesn't do anything even if I put it on top.
• M

  Access host on the LAN using public IP
  • michaeldemb  

  23
  0
  Votes
  23
  Posts
  100
  Views

  

  No it had not cached dns.. Once you set an override any "cached" records would of been overwritten since the act of creating a host override restarts the dns service.. You were not pointing to pfsense for dns..
• V

  Nat 1:1 virtual subnet openvpn
  • vacant309  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  19
  Views

  No one has replied

• F

  Double NAT with no option to Bridge ISP router
  • franky29  

  10
  0
  Votes
  10
  Posts
  209
  Views

  F

  I'm an idiot. I'm so used to cisco fw rules that I totally misinterpreted this. I feel Sheeeeepish ;) Thanks man! you truly deserve the thumbs up.
• M

  Need Help with DNS Bypass for a Specific Computer
  • Magwich  

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  75
  Views

  

  Order priority of NAT rules ? I advise you to use firewall rules to achieve known ordering. See https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/dns/redirecting-all-dns-requests-to-pfsense.html and https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/dns/blocking-dns-queries-to-external-resolvers.html
• S

  Home Assistant Duckdns/LetsEncrypt NAT settings behind double NAT.
  • sterfry1988  

  7
  0
  Votes
  7
  Posts
  1268
  Views

  F

  @g146m026 no worries. I'm getting a bit further now. I got packet capture from the WAN side and I can see some 443 traffic trying to hit 8123 but getting dropped.
• R

  Slow static IP routing
  • RonRN18  

  4
  0
  Votes
  4
  Posts
  34
  Views

  

  I would prob look to doing a packet capture of the traffic to see where your having a problem as a good place to start.
• B

  Connecting to printer across vlans
  • bbirdwell  

  2
  0
  Votes
  2
  Posts
  38
  Views

  

  @bbirdwell said in Connecting to printer across vlans: Its awful annoying to have to jump on my home wifi every time I have to print something. Ypu want to make your printer available to a (your) device on the Internet ? The first part of your question : VLAN are the same thing as LAN's here. Example, you have a LAN interface setup like the default 192.168.1.1/24 - a printer having, say, 192.168.1.10 on this LAN. When you connect to another LAN, like 192.168.2.1/24 - you could use the IP of the printer - 192.168.1.10 and print just fine. Jo just use your router as a ..... router. If you have firewall rules on your second 192.168.2.1/24 interface that block access to the first LAN, 192.168.1.1/24, you have to place a "PASS" firewall rule on 192.168.2.1/24 interface. Now your are using your router as a router, and firewall ^^ Note : the second LAN on any pfSense has no rules, thus it blocks everything initially. You have to add some rules to make it useful. The printer alias is the list with IP's of all my printers on the LAN interface. With this rule on my (captive) PORTAL interface, my captive portals visitors can print on my printers. Note : my visitors don't no sh*t about my printers, neither the IP nor network names, but the Avahi packages, and the DHCP registration into the DNS, makes devices that are capable to printer to find them, list their capabilities, and print.
• M

  Single IP Subnet on WAN - How?
  • mattyakel  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  36
  Views

  No one has replied

• F

  Webserver acces from LAN
  • foravis  

  9
  0
  Votes
  9
  Posts
  70
  Views

  F

  It worked with NAT Reflection. Thanks
• I

  Blocking Internet at Various Times and Devices
  • Imburr  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  24
  Views

  No one has replied

• E

  NAT in vmware not working.. access to mgmt works
  • edvrfn  

  1
  0
  Votes
  1
  Posts
  40
  Views

  No one has replied

• N

  migrating NAT rules from Sonicwall to PfSense, how to NAT an origin/destination address
  • nuclearstrength  

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  90
  Views

  N

  @viragomann yes, that is what that rule is doing on the sonicwall, s-nat and d-nat on the same rule while also matching a port/service. as you suggested the way to do that on pfsense is to use both port forward and outbound nat to achieve the same. the thing is: there's hundreds of those rules, and they will need to be maintained in the future, effectively doubling each sonicwall rule while migrating them to pfsense will make maintenance much harder. My IT manager suggested looking at using 1:1 NAT rules and dealing with service/port matching in a different ways, maybe something can be done to effectively do that using firewall rules or policy routing. I'm in the process of exploring those options on a test deployment in our lab, any suggestion towards that would be greatly appreciated.
• P

  NAT reflection on mail servers
  • pipers  

  14
  0
  Votes
  14
  Posts
  77
  Views

  N

  And you also need to do this for all domains hosted on local mail servers. And also manage this and external dns changes as needed.
• K

  NAT Portforward not logging access
  • koko_adams  

  7
  0
  Votes
  7
  Posts
  51
  Views

  K

  i resolv my problem now i face auther issue
• O

  OpenVPN Client - Port Forward Guidance
  • oddworld19  

  3
  0
  Votes
  3
  Posts
  211
  Views

  B

  Not sure if this will still help you or not. I found myself troubleshooting the same issue with Mullvad Port Forwarding and came across your post. I eventually overcame this problem by leaving the route pulling options unchecked and allowing the Mullvad routes into my routing table and using using "policy based forwarding" on my to direct traffic on my LAN interface. You can create (or use the existing) firewall rule that allows traffic out of the LAN to the WAN. On this rule use the advanced options drop-down to specify the gateway on your primary WAN interface. This is not an ideal workaround as the default route for the firewall is still set to use Mullvad and this can have some unintended consequences, but it will allow you to use port forwarding on your VPN client. Hope this helps. I'd be interested to know if you ever came up with a solution of your own.
• S

  NAT Rule to work on internal network
  • Synchrol  

  6
  0
  Votes
  6
  Posts
  76
  Views

  

  Well split your /28 into 2 /29.. So for example 41.0.0.0/28 = .1 to .14 41.0.0.0/29 = .1 to .6 (lan IPs) 41.0.0.8/29 = .9 to .14 (vip IPs) Use either of those as your network behind pfsense, and then use the other as VIP IPs that you nat with.. Depends on how many IPs you need behind... You could also just use them all as VIPs and use everything behind on rfc1918.. Just because they routed the /28 to you doesn't mean you can't just use them all as VIPs on and do everything behind a nat.
• M

  Setup of multiple WAN IP addresses and bypass of NAT for a multi client deployment
  • mpcjames  

  7
  0
  Votes
  7
  Posts
  89
  Views

  T

  On ours we do have WAN rules allowing IP4+6/any traffic to the internal IPs referenced by the 1:1 NAT. (those then have their own router with their own rules) Sorry if I missed that, it may be 15 years since we set it up, and it was on m0n0wall back then not pfSense. :) I have not tried to do 1:1 using a different interface as we are using a private IP range on LAN and each tenant (including our 1:1) has their own IP. What is your Outbound NAT Mode set to? For the OPT2 interface if it had no rules it needs at least a rule allowing outbound traffic (from OPT2 to any). In our case we have DHCP turned off and disabled the default LAN to any rule so only whitelisted IPs (tenants) are allowed.
• A

  Need to open a nat from lan to lan via wan
  • assistenzanet95  

  23
  0
  Votes
  23
  Posts
  93
  Views

  

  nothing else here, maybe the host have its own firewall blocking external ip? check with packet capture / wireshark if you see the traffic
• 

  How to block RDP access in 1:1 NAT setup
  • Henry  

  25
  0
  Votes
  25
  Posts
  172
  Views

  

  Security though obscurity is not security... Opening up rdp to the public internet no matter what port is a BAD idea!!! If you want to rdp to this box, then vpn in and then do it.