@viragomann

Okay, it doesnt work.

My setup.

Firewall Site A: Openvpn remote net to 192.168.123.0/24 and 172.16.0.0/24
Firewall Site B: Openvpn local network 192.168.123.0/24 172.16.0.0/24
On the virtual IPs Ive added every NAT IP Address as /32 for example 10.123.1.23/32
The rules are from Site A 10.1.0.0/24 -> Site B 192.168.123.0/24 *
Site A 10.1.0.0/24 -> Site C 172.16.0.0/24 *
The Firewall Site B: have defined a Outgoing NAT for connections coming from 172.16.0.0/24 to 10.1.0.23 by using a NAT with the NAT IP 10.123.1.23
And a port forwarding in the other direction.
Thats an example setup for one site with one ip. But is that connect ?
I cant reach the site a from site c with this setup.

@aquinch

Hello!

Are you running the traceroute while shelled into your DS? I get flaky results running traceroute with the port option while shelled in.

You could try a different host and run putty/telnet...

telnet mail.synology.com 25
telnet mail.synology.com 587
...

John

@thewho
Glad that you it working.

Nevermind, I guess. Looks like no one knows.

In the meantime I figured out a different way as workaround.... hand editing the Backup NAT and Firewall rules and using Restore.

Just export, copy your last rule from each, paste into a new one. Change the name, blank the associated GUID ID to nothing, change protocol to ipencap, blank the port in port reference. Save. Import NAT file. Import Firewall file. No reboot needed.

Do a tcpdump -vvv -i tunl0 on your NAT'ted AMPR gateway you're trying to expose. If you did this right and AMPR portal is already sending traffic to your public IP, your NAT should kick in and ipencap should start flowing and registering on your terminal from tcpdump immediately.

Good luck if youre on newer PFsense.. (2.7.2) looking into running AMPR gateway, and Google brought you to this post.

Cheers
Byron

This is how I set mine up.

https://forum.netgate.com/topic/156453/pfsense-dns-redirect-to-local-dns-server?_=1671847956280

@heper

Strictly seen you are right if you say that the rule order is less strict than I did suggest. If there are reasons to choose another rule order (e.g. performance), I use (partly) another order myself.

Related to the difference in ^pfSence-rules^ and ^pf-rules^ at this moment I can only say that "pfctl -vvsr" shows that ^pfsense-rules^ are expanded to a lot more rules. Perhaps it is not as bad as I suggested in my example. No time to investigate that now.

What ever, I am not there in the next few days. 😊
So I will scratch my head after that break.

@viragomann Thanks you it all works now. I was mistyping the ping address. It's time to go home.

@SteveITS
after disabling the landline phone from my Internet router, the packet started to come :)
Thank you very much for the hint :)

@viragomann I have created an isolated lab for this. Slightly different ranges.

Source site = 172.16.43.0/24
Target site = 172.16.200.0/24
Isolated network on target side = 172.16.210.0/24

IPSEC Interface
FW rules any/any on IPV4.
Also enabled sloppy mode.
No joy.

4929c874-460c-4515-8f2c-aa337c71baac-image.png

I was tinkering with Outbound NAT rules for the interfaces to be able to route between each other which led to different results on a picture capture. Not sure if any specific outbound NAT would be required here:

48f545fb-1a9d-4de9-853c-1d6257f94cc4-image.png

273b324f-1ed5-4c5f-9f3f-14e71c51df30-image.png

@viragomann

Thank you again. I assume that this also would explain why I did see some kind of traffic with the port sniffing. Apologies for the confusion, my ignorance with assuming masquerading certainly didn't help. Lesson learned!

@viragomann I'm using "Any" as port config for accessing the GUI via WAN. Indeed, I need to state a specific port so I can access more than one interface via WAN. Thanks for reminding me of that!

Before anyone points this out, the rules have been turned off temporarily hence the light check marks, while testing the rules below are active.

NAT_GENERAL.png Port_Forward_NAT_Rule.png WAN_Firewall_Rules.png

Apparently this is because pfSense (pf) uses Symmetric NAT. This makes hole punching impossible.

@esilva0608 yes anything with that subnets destination must be directed to the other routers address so it can find what you want. It’s like library it needs the location of where the books or data is. Static route but just for that subnets destination, tell it to go to that firewall, do the same on the other firewall in reverse. If they are geographically separated you will need a VPN networking between them. If you can connect the routers together with a backbone cable you just need a static route.

Static route
Anything requesting the other private subnet——-send to the other firewalls ip address—>

Or you can be specific and the source could be a specific IP address only or a couple of them.

@fuckwit_mcbumcrumble
You need to add the public IPs to the WAN first. Firewall > Virtual IPs
Use type "IP Alias", select WAN interface and state the desired IP with the correct /29 mask.

Then in the outbound NAT rule at translation address you can select this IP from the drop-down. But it should also work with the alias you've already created.

@johnpoz & @SteveITS , thanks for the further feedback and the address for feature requests.

I think I'll try using a single IP address for outbound NAT for some time. With currently only around 40-50 users, that should be enough for now.

Thank you again for the quick and good help and the many considerations and approaches!

@DominikHoffmann I find it highly unlikely that any of these 5G hotspot/internet things are providing a viable public IPv4 address that you could use for unsolicited inbound traffic..

edit: hmmm well butter my butt and call me a biscuit ;)

Maybe you can do it with the verizon 5g internet

https://www.verizon.com/support/knowledge-base-227033/