• 1 Votes
    3 Posts
    923 Views
    D
    @3Texans By any chance, did you get it to work? I moved from Ubi Edge router Lite to PfSense and Obi200 GV config is broken for me. Would really appreciate if you could throw some lights in case if you were able to fix it.
  • Redirect outbound SMTP traffic to internal 'mail trap' system

    13
    0 Votes
    13 Posts
    689 Views
    Bob.DigB
    Lets hope it is for a good cause.
  • NAT Issue on Virtual IP on WAN2

    nat virtualip multi wan
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views
    Z
    Update, I Was never able to get this working properly, but Now that the 2.7.0 update has been released, once I updated, everything is working as expected. not sure if it was some sort of Hyper-V Driver issue, or some other bug that was fixed in this release.... just glad I can utilize my secondary internet connection better now. thanks for all the help!
  • NAT + DNS Resolver behavior

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    355 Views
    B
    @SteveITS Thank you! It was not. One other thing I forgot was I had DNS over TLS and some off these settings weren't properly configured. (https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/recipes/dns-redirect.html) with this properly configured even my work PC which tries to leverage a cooperate DNS server is forced back to my resolver (which properly resolves to my LAN address inside the network). At some point I will try your option which is also a great solution. Thanks for your reply! -b
  • Port forward + Source NAT + IPSec VTI

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    414 Views
    D
    @DirectRaw If that packet capture was on the VTI, it means your routes on pfSense1 are correct. What about pfSense2? Do you have a route to send traffic to destination 172.19.0.1 through the VTI?
  • outbound nat for a gateway group

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    484 Views
    V
    @ivarh The outbound NAT rules are applied to interfaces. So they have nothing to do with gateway groups at all. If you want them to specify only once for multiple interfaces, you can create an interface group and apply the rules to this.
  • allow access from internal device to another internal device

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    493 Views
    P
    @GameHoundsDev said in allow access from internal device to another internal device: I am trying to allow internal VM to communicate with another VM You need both Ethernet level 2 connection. This is most easily done by having them on the same LAN. Within Proxmox that is done most easily by having them on the same bridge (the virtual equivalent of a physical Ethernet switch) IP routing (if you intend to use a WAN IP to access a local LAN device). Look at NAT reflection
  • advanced configuration

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    242 Views
    V
    @fejzulla-neziri said in advanced configuration: also services dns resolver Host Overrides added domains but nithing This is the preferred method to go, presumed your local computers use the DNS Resolver to resolve host names. So ensure that they do conventional DNS requests, not DoH. Consider to redirect all DNS requests to the localhost on all internal interface and to block DoH with pfBlockerNG. Also ensure that you firewall rules allow access to the web servers.
  • 0 Votes
    20 Posts
    2k Views
    R
    @keyser thanks again
  • How can I configure PFSense to enable full cone nat

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    1k Views
    insmodI
    Bluntly, no. Not without a much better documented use case for this patch, along with tests and some sort of indications that the author (or someone...) will maintain it. Right now it is abandoned, and doesn't even apply any more. This patch makes fairly deep changes to the NAT code, changes which I currently do not understand and do not have the motivation or energy to study. If it gets committed and breaks something I'm going to be the one who has to fix it, so ... no, not unless someone can present a compelling case that this actually improves anything, that it is correct and that if there are issues they will work on them. From the freebsd forum,I guess the pfSense guys can make it ?
  • NAT over IPSEC to private network

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    478 Views
    V
    @Matt_Sharpe said in NAT over IPSEC to private network: It is not PFsense on both sides. However considering the NAT required is happening on the target side which is a PFsense. I assume this is the best place to ask :) But the other site doesn't accept the multiple phase 2, as it knows only one, I guess. Again, check the logs to find out, what's wrong.
  • Routing not working without outbound NAT

    14
    0 Votes
    14 Posts
    1k Views
    B
    @JonathanLee Thank you.
  • TMO CellSpot and VZW Network Extender not working

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    229 Views
    No one has replied
  • Port forward issue to PBX

    nat port forward outbound nat port
    10
    0 Votes
    10 Posts
    2k Views
    E
    @emc This issue has been fixed. NAT is working. It was a firewall issue in the PBX. I've whitelisted the IPs on the PBX's firewall and it works. Thank you everyone for your help.
  • use port 80 for port-forwarding when using ssl for pfsense interface

    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    1k Views
    johnpozJ
    @uz890ed so you disabled the 80 redirect on pfsense? Validate that pfsense is not listening on 80, simple sockstat [23.05.1-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/var/unbound: sockstat -l | grep :80 root nginx 90402 9 tcp4 *:80 *:* root nginx 90402 10 tcp6 *:80 *:* root nginx 90166 9 tcp4 *:80 *:* root nginx 90166 10 tcp6 *:80 *:* root nginx 90115 9 tcp4 *:80 *:* root nginx 90115 10 tcp6 *:80 *:* [23.05.1-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/var/unbound: I then turn off the redirection.. [image: 1688120946720-redirect.jpg] [23.05.1-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/var/unbound: sockstat -l | grep :80 [23.05.1-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/var/unbound:
  • pfsense 2.7 and Nat Reflection

    1
    1 Votes
    1 Posts
    422 Views
    No one has replied
  • Dual WAN SG-7100 and UniFi Talk Install

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    294 Views
    P
    Adding a network diagram, which I hope helps better describe the problem. [image: 1688062198225-dual-wan-issue-page-2.drawio.png]
  • Slow NAT

    12
    0 Votes
    12 Posts
    1k Views
    A
    @johnpoz thanks for the tip and i did the same test. Window on top is WAN and on the bottom is LAN. I just captured 10 packets from each interface and seems it is pretty fast so the culprit is not the NAT. [image: 1688031638913-a243489b-bc55-49e5-87b2-747bd73a304f-image.png] Found though two solutions but still not why it is happening. Remove Accept-Encoding header from the http request - result is very fast. Using a reverse proxy with https is still fast with and without the Accept-Encoding header
  • snat

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    346 Views
    M
    @viragomann Thank you very much for your answer and explanation, it worked.
  • Solved: Port forward stopped working a few days ago, can't see why

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