• 0 Votes
    6 Posts
    2k Views
    johnpozJ

    @drew-kun said in Please help: VLAN and NAT port forward to Shadowsocks server behind pfsense (Netgate SG1100):

    You are amazing!

    And yet not even a thumbs up to say thanks..

  • NAT not working. Probably a weird setup, but it *should* work, right?

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    1k Views
    A

    NickMZ were you able to setup pfsense in IBM Cloud Classic Infra (Softlayer) using different DC?

  • Disable NAT for set of IPs whilst retaining for others

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    2k Views
    DerelictD

    @wifi-will Limiters don't care whether the addresses are private or public or if there is NAT.

  • NAT Issue?

    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    988 Views
    D

    @droidus said in NAT Issue?:

    @behemyth I am running different hardware than that device. It is called Protectli.

    bump *
  • /29 and /30 NAT Disable

    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    828 Views
    johnpozJ

    @wifi-will said in /29 and /30 NAT Disable:

    LAN2 for public IP1, LAN3 for public IP2 etc...

    Sure you can put all your switch ports in your /29 network and then connect devices directly to the switch to be in the /29 network.

    Or you could use port 1 of the switch for some other network, and the other ports in the switch for your /29, etc.

    I personally like my interfaces discrete on my router, why I have a 4860 vs a model with a switch built in.. But some people like the switch in the router. But what you do with that switch is really no different than an external vlan capable switch. Be all the ports are in 1 vlan, or you break up the ports to be in other vlans.

  • 1:1 Nat to a subnet or vlan

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    588 Views
    V

  • OpenVPN site to site NAT

    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    1k Views
    K

    @viragomann Ok i got it working.
    It took some cleaning up after previous attempts and I wouldn't make it work if it wasn't for you info.
    Thanks

  • NAT Port Forward on 80 redirects to 443 not working

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    367 Views
    V

    @bambos said in NAT Port Forward on 80 redirects to 443 not working:

    192.168.27.201:443 NOT Working
    192.168.27.201:80 working, and i can see the browser redirecting to 443.
    192.168.27.201 working, and i can see the browser redirecting to https://192.168.27.201

    These are not URLs! If you omit the http(s) (the scheme) the browser will add any itself to call the site. Which one might depend on the browser and his records with the destination.

    https basically goes alway to port 443 and http to port 80.

    Your forwarding is presumbably done by the web server. So this is a bit off-topic here.
    But if you want to see, what your web server replies on port 80, go to Diagnostics > Command Prompt in pfSense GUI and type

    curl -s -i http://192.168.27.201

    in the Execute Shell Command box. If it is redirected you should get code 301 or 302 and the new destination. If you get 200 there is no redirection.

  • Outbound NAT not translating when port forward

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    544 Views
    E

    @johnpoz changed default gateway to WAN2 and it works like a charm.

    When WAN2 is secondary gateway Outbound NAT is manual and packets are directed through the correct WAN2 interface after a port forward, but they are just not being NATed and egress using the private IP through the WAN2 interface.

    Reading the bug comments slowly, it has already been reported and people have it working with 2.5.2 RC

    Thank you!

  • NAT trick over VPN to access LAN's on same range (avoid conflict)

    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    720 Views
    B

    @brians i don't know IPSec. most probably you can do something like this using openVPN. i suggest you start another threat in the correct forum section.

  • UPnP behind private IP- working with a "hack"

    4
    1 Votes
    4 Posts
    624 Views
    Bob.DigB

    @viktor_g Thank you for letting me know.

    Regarding my "hack", today I noticed that the dyndns.update cron-job failed for IPv4 with my cloudflare "clients", the RFC 2136 "client" had no problem with IPv4.
    I then removed the virtual-IP, only had 6.6.6.6 in the UPnP & NAT-PMP Settings and dyndns.update is working again and UPnP is still working!

    So the only thing someone has to do is to put in some random public IP in Override WAN address in the UPnP & NAT-PMP Settings, to get it working behind a private IP?!
    Is it so easy?
    No need for a STUN Server and all this nonsense??
    I really don't know, why (mini-)UPnP needs to know the public IP in the first place.

  • Outgoing nat on OpenVPN interface

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    442 Views
    L

    Yes, the Openvpn makes a routes at A for 192.168.110.0/24.
    But i think the problem is at B, because i cant see any trafik leave the OpenVPN interface connected to A, when i ping a host at 195.80.240.0/20

  • First configuration : NAT

    42
    0 Votes
    42 Posts
    8k Views
    KOMK

    @freyja

    I said from the beginning that I wanted to replicate the configuration I had with my pix as the netgate act a replacement.

    That isn't an explanation for the reasoning behind the method. I understood you wanted to make it the same as what you had before. That's not hard to understand. The question was 'why do you want it that way?' What problem does this solve? That's all.

    All my configuration is based on that and despite the fact you disagree, I want to mask my internal network for things such honeypot for example.

    I don't necessarily disagree when I don't know all the details. That's why I was asking. You said earlier that you wanted to mask your network but I didn't understand the context nor did John. Usually a DMZ is completely isolated from LAN which is its entire point, and any required access is strictly controlled via rules. It's unusual to have a DMZ that needs to talk to LAN so much.

    It's not because you do not understand the usefulness of what I want it's illegal.

    I'll definitely admit that I don't see the usefulness of what you're doing.

    And such a supposition is quite surprising.
    I said what I wanted to do, you just don't listen.

    No, you said things like 'mask my network' and 'several reasons' but you never actually gave any specifics. Two of us were confused so you weren't as clear as you think.

    1- reproduce what I had before just not to have to reconfigure everything
    2- mask my internal network because I don't want people to be aware of it.

    Got it. I don't know how that would help you though. Yes, I understand that you are going to keep it this way and I have no problem with that. I'm just curious. How would people who interact with your DMZ be aware of what's on your LAN? Someone who cracks one of your DMZ servers will see what it's talking to and try to exploit that regardless of its DMZ vs LAN IP address.

    But still you're pushing over and over because it sounds overcomplicated for you but at the very end it's my problem if it's overcomplicated, right?

    It doesn't sound overcomplicated. It sounded like it didn't make any sense. I was asking for details because I thought I was missing something.

    I've never seen such aggressive people about simple tech questions, really I don't understand what you are trying to do there.

    Every single day here, new users decide to do something using an incorrect or sub-optimal method and then they ask specific questions in order to reach their bad end instead of asking for the best way to do something using pfSense. I thought that is what you were doing so I asked questions trying to determine what problem you needed to solve.

    I've started eluding your queries because I had answered them and didn't want to go in an argument fight and having to justify my setup.
    You make me feel I want to pack back my netgate and return it.

    This has nothing to do with Netgate.

    I've worked with Cisco, Nokia, McAfee, checkpoint firewall and never seen such agresisvity from a tech community.
    I'm starting feeling your are acting like that because you've seen I'm a girl and think I don't know what I'm doing.
    Don't make me think it's just a misogynistic behavior.

    How would I know you're a woman, and why would that matter?? My entire knowledge of you is from this one thread.

    That's said, I'm not doing anything illegal, i just wanted to reproduce my Pix configuration to simplify my life and don't have to reconfigure every service I'm using and that's all.

    Understood. Thank you for making it clearer for me. I think this has been one big misunderstanding and I will not trouble you again.

  • 1:1 NAT not working with VPN connection client

    3
    0 Votes
    3 Posts
    380 Views
    M

    @steveits Saw the reply loop on the article, it seems plus version should not have this issue, mine is plus version. TT

  • NAT not working on other IPs in my block

    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    546 Views
    DerelictD

    @peterlecki The interface was not given the whole block. It was given one interface IP address and a subnet mask.

    It is up to the administrator to assign IP addresses if it wants the firewall to respond to ARP requests. In many cases it is desirable to not respond to ARP there, especially when using routed subnets.

  • L2TP VPN default gateway Windows

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    330 Views
    No one has replied
  • Access internet through IPSEC site to site VPN

    9
    0 Votes
    9 Posts
    736 Views
    M

    Solved

  • 2 WAN&1LAN setup, NAT not working

    10
    0 Votes
    10 Posts
    1k Views
    V

    @testcb00 said in 2 WAN&1LAN setup, NAT not working:

    Do you mean that I can do some config in pfSense to get the IP A (second WAN) port forwarding function?

    As I mentioned, it depends on the capabilities of the router in front of the WAN interface. I don't know it. If it does masquerading incoming traffic it should work straight forward.
    Some consumer routers do this by default.

    Masquerading means that it translates the source IP of incoming forwarded packets into its own internal IP (also known as SNAT). This is what the outbound NAT does on pfSense.

  • Reject Message received even if ports and protocols opened

    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    269 Views
    No one has replied
  • Outbound NAT - this shouldn't be this hard

    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    549 Views
    W

    @johnpoz Thanks again for the post. I upgraded to devel 2.6 and tried it. Traffic on the FW is passing with green check marks, it doesn't seem to be working. In fact, my hybrid NAT with the rule I have in place doesn't work either as in the previous version AND on top of that, I re-enabled the LAN rule I had where it would make that host's IP use the secondary gateway that was working...and it is now NOT working.

    ** Edit: The LAN rule must have taken a minute, it is working now BUT still same problem. It no worky with secondary WAN like it says in the redmine post

    Truly and enterprise product. SMH

    The folks on the redmine post that think it is working in 2.6 devel aren't correct because it's clearly not working.

Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.