Found the solution. Go to outbound nat Source: Network 192.168.1.11/32 Destination: Any - port 25 Translation: Address: 1.1.1.8 Save and Apply

@viktor_g [image: 1645773433068-rules_rtk-2.jpg] NAT SDB SERVER rule works and exists The problem is in the rule NAT TOiR

@nguser6947 said in Newbie port forwarding problem: it is failing due to the default rule You say this because you've looked at the firewall logs and you saw the incoming (WAN) traffic - with the correct (8096) port and correct "protocol TCP" being flagged as 'blocked' ? I give you an example : I have a Synology Diskstation in my LAN, it has IPv4 192.168.1.33 (RFC1918 of course). I've created an alias for the device name "diskstation2", it resolves to 192.168.1.33. I want to access my Diskstation using https://diskatation2.my-domain.tld:8080 I created a NAT rule : [image: 1645717026281-3c428a1a-b625-4f10-977d-9a971db2e971-image.png] The 'destination' is the firewall macro WAN Address, as my WAN is is always part of WAN address. The day my WAN IP changes, my rule still works. I want to reach my diskskation on port 8080, so "Destination port range" is set to 8080. The traffic that comes in and matches WAN Address & port 8080 should go to : Redirect target IP : I entered the Alias "diskstation2", I could also enter "192.168.1.30". And the destination port : my diskstation web server listens on "443", it's using TLS. I Save. I have a NAT rule : [image: 1645717459343-b9a38f8a-b0c8-4b69-a812-ea43c0b161da-image.png] I checked the auto created WAN firewall rule : [image: 1645717315142-a7ab50e0-b8d0-4256-925b-404c45452f7f-image.png] I tested with my phone ( with Wifi shut down !! ) , and entered : https://diskatation2.my-domain.tld:8080 I saw the main web page of the web server of my diskstation2. I also saw : [image: 1645717384360-b995333c-91b4-438e-8378-a00fc2c2ce60-image.png] which means that the WAN rule was used / matches incoming traffic. That was me testing the access with my phone.. If needed, abuse the pfSense documentation, like Port Forwards. Port forwarding or port NATting or, more correct, PATting, hasn't changed since 1995. Every Home/business router/firewall needs the same inputs. pfSEnse seems to be diffrent but check for yourself : you have to enter 4 things, and your good. The rest of the option are 'special cases'. The day you need them, you'll know they are there. Also : I copied all the images without the need of masking something. The correct use of aliases and firewall macros make rules maintenance easy : It becomes a "set it and forget it" which means I had to look up the pfSense NAT doc, as I tend to forget things. I do not use NAT rules any more, only a VPN access which is just a firewall rule, no NAT). Exposing internal devices in a company network is a big no no (imho). This said : this is also valid for you : now your 192.168.1.250 becomes part of your network security. Keep that in mind.

@johnpoz Yes, that was what I thought, and the question initially was regarding why it was not working. But I've found the problem now. I've set it, in the general setting, but NAT Reflection was set individually on each NAT rule. So changes here had no real affect. Thanks a lot for your time.

@rsherga In the OpenVPN client settings check "Don't pull routes" to permit the client to set the default route. Assign an interface to the vpn client instance and enable it if you didn't already. Then add a policy routing firewall rule to the internal interface. Enter the source IP or an alias for multiple if you want to specify. At destination leave the address at any and enter the destination port range. Expand the advanced options and select the VPN gateway. Put this rule to the top of the rule set so that it matches first. I assume, you your outbound NAT is already set to work with the VPN. To verify that the packets go out on the VPN interface, you can sniff the traffic using the packet capture tool on pfSense, while you try a connection to the concerned ports. To ensure that nothing goes out to WAN you can add a floating block rule for direction out with Quick checked and state the ports in regards.

@viragomann Thank you for the information, I did in fact have the P2 local network defined as the subnet on within the local LAN assuming the routing would have still sent the traffic across based on the destination IP and the routing table however that obviously didn't end up being the case. After changing the local network on the P2 from 192.168.1.0/24 to 0.0.0.0/0 the traffic started sending across the tunnel. Thank you for the help!

@hulleyrob OK so it seems if I add a desitnation address I can save the rule however this was not the case before the upgrade.

@bossey1 said in Port forwarding multiple vms same application different domains: Will HAproxy added make this harder or easier? Unless you have multiple IPs there where you have X, if you did I would of assumed .X and .Y and .Y etc. given vs all .X If you have the same public IP and you want to hit different private IPs based on the domain, really only way to do it is with HAproxy. If you only have 1 public IP being used, you have to do other ports to get forwarded to different lan side IPs. If not using a reverse proxy. But with HAproxy you can look at the fqdn trying to go to, and direct that to different backend devices.

@johnpoz Ok, So after tons of testing I think I can say it's the GeoIP causing the issue, Not sure why, and it's not consistent 100% of the time, But when Floating rules are enabled (and the interfaces are selected in inbound and outbound) and GeoIP is enabled as Deny Inbound, the issue exist. I wasn't able to reproduce the issue when Floating Rules was disabled. Sometimes even if Floating Rules was enabled and GeoIp was enabled then it worked (for example when changing the Floating Rules from disable to enable while GeoIp was enabled, it worked sometimes and no issue existed. Only if i disabled all GeoIp, forced PfBlocker to reload all rules (under Update), Enabled GeoIp, forced reload again then the issue happened I think every time. It also seems like for me, while I live in Israel (which is part of Asia Alias), Europe GeoIp caused more for the issue to happen, even if only one country from that filter was selected. I know it's not 100% step by step on how to re-produce the bug but that's what I managed to gather so far, hope it's enough. [image: 1645089050052-3d34463f-dbd7-4149-a18d-fe9ffc806a63-image.png]

@nogbadthebad said in how to allow access from wan subnet: Yup, he could add the static route on 192.168.1.17. Yeah if your going to have hosts on your transit you would need to do host routing.. Its a hack, not a true setup anyone should want. When its simple enough to set it up correctly. To be honest you would almost never actually want/need a downstream router, your going the wrong direction that way to be honest. Just replace your edge with pfsense, use your old wifi router as just an AP as the transition phase until you can get AP that allow vlan and switches that can as well if you want to setup a real network ;) Yes in a large enterprise network you would see routing done internally all the time vs just at the edge.. But in a small network or home or home with lab setup just doesn't really make sense other than a learning experience. And if your wanting to learn, then do it correctly with a transit network.. Sure if you want to play with why it doesn't work when you have hosts on a transit and the asymmetrical traffic flow that will result - sure have at it.. But I would set it up correctly, then break it with putting hosts on your transit and see why the asymmetrical flow is not good when you have stateful firewalls also in play..

Hi @cswroe, Yes I created the Site-to-Site IPSec with NAT'ing using this link. The tunnel is UP together with Phase 2. I can also see traffic from Site A to Site B. When it enters the Site B and I do a packet capture, I can see the the NAT IP addresses. Thanks & Regards, Sam

@viragomann thanks mate

@pixel24 said in Redirecting a subnet: For the installation, I would like to access the new virtual network from the LAN You have two different LANs. Guess you mean this one 192.168.24.0/24. Is there a way to set up a redirection on the 'old' pfSense so that all calls for 192.168.83.0/24 from the network 192.168.24.0/24 are routed to the WAN IP of the 'new' pfSense (192.168.24.20)? Really not clear, why you want to do that. But yes, that's doable with a simple port forwarding rule, presupposed the old pfSense is the default gateway in the LAN. However, since both source and redirect target are within the same subnet, you need to masquerade the source IP. For masquerading add a rule in Firewall > NAT > outbound. If the outbound NAT is in automatic mode, switch into hybrid mode and save this first. Then add a new rule: interface: LAN source: LAN net dest.: 192.168.24.20 translation: interface address (or LAN CARP VIP if any) Port forwarding: interface: LAN source: any dest: 192.168.83.0/2 redirect target: 192.168.24.20

@viragomann Thank you! This helped me