@Bob-Dig said in CANNOT PING VLAN INTERFACE IP FROM SAME VLAN:
@HHUBS said in CANNOT PING VLAN INTERFACE IP FROM SAME VLAN:
Or I should ping it from the same VLAN even if no rules are added?
No, it is the firewall and with that, it is able and will block the connection without rules. Different would be to ping a host on a switch, which is in the same LAN. Then the connection is not hitting the firewall in the first place and the firewall can do nothing about it.
@johnpoz said in CANNOT PING VLAN INTERFACE IP FROM SAME VLAN:
@HHUBS out of the box the only interface with default rule to allow is lan that defaults to an any any rule, anti-lockout.. If you create a new interface be it vlan or native you would have to add the rules you want.
Yes by default no rules would hit the default deny and yes block ping, or any other access.
Thank you so much for your help.
@scottlindner if the goal is leverage 2.5ge connection - yeah a small 2.5ge seems like a good solution.
You could then if enough ports on this new switch - leverage lacp from the 1 gig switch to provide for more bandwidth to the router.
This wont help with a single connection, but it would provide for more bandwidth for multiple devices on the 48 port to the router interface through the 2.5ge switch.
Yeah a 48 port 2.5ge managed is prob not all that cheap ;)
You could then also move a vlan or both off your current lan interface onto their own 2.5ge interface. Maybe a 16 port 2.5ge switch price is more budget friendly? This would give you plenty of ports to work with - you could have 3 different uplinks for your networks, and then 2 or more as lacp to your 1 ge switch, and leave plenty of ports for 2.5ge APs into the new switch. Or maybe 8 port is enough?
@Gblenn
I would have followed up earlier but have been busy with both the network and other stuff.
I still appreciate your advice. And I have been reading more about the concept of VLANs.
The old D-Link is still in the rack and I use it for a "backup" so I can go back to this if the Unifi switch does not work.
Theres is another problem that I haven't been able to solve.
The Unifi controller holds all the configured wired and wireless networks even if I use hardware reset on the switch. But no matter what I do, the switch appears to be offline after a few moments.
And even if it still handles the traffic according to the configuration, it is offline in the sense that I can't ping it or log in with ssh.
When I use the old switch and just connect the new one through a single cable, the switch can be adopted and configured.
I have read a lot of post about similar issues at the Ubiquiti Forum. Some suggests to manually change the inform host like this set-inform http://ip-of-controller:8080/inform. This seems not to change anything.
Other suggestions are to add an 43 option to the DHCP server (pfSense) or make a host override at the same place.
Do you have any suggestions?
@dj_jc_jase glad to hear sorted.. Possible something got messed up with during the double change at same time? I don't have anything on poe switch from unifi - so not sure if AP might reboot on switch IP change because of loss of poe? And then possible loss of talking to the controller to get info.. Something was not right.
But from a actual network pov - the management IP of the switch and ck has zero to do with anything.
@Antonio1971 if you setup a bridge - then your firewall rules would have to allow the traffic over your bridge..
While bridging can "some what" simulate the actions of a switch - it is not a switch.. A 20$ gig switch would solve your issue ;) shoot if your only after 3 connections a 10$ 5 port gig switch solve your problem
The time you have spent on this clearly exceeds the cost of a switch - I can tell you for sure if I charged for my time in answering you could of gotten multiple smart switches, and I have spent only a couple of minutes - hehehe
A bridge does have specific uses cases.. Trying to turn 2 discrete interfaces into a switch is not one of them. The only time I would even think of doing it would be if production was down and it needed to be up NOW.. And the switch won't be here til tmrw..
Got it sorted. For anyone reading, the main issue was I have manual outbound NAT rules setup. I had to set up a NAT rule for the VLAN IP address range and the WAN as the interface (thanks ChatGPT for correcting my mistake of putting the VLAN assignment as the interface). All is now working and bypassing NordVPN
@louis2 These are the only 2 machines talking to each other at the same time? Then it isn't a problem, your acks are going to go on the same wire as well now.. So you would never be able to see full throughput. be it that small.
Your talking about a optimization of jumbo, but then are not caring about your overall bandwidth being reduced.
What if you have machines C and D talking to each other on a completely different vlans - but they share the same wire now. Or could be.
If your happy with your setup.. Have at it.
All of that aside - you still haven't shown that your disks can read/write at the extra throughput jumbo could bring.. If the disks can not write/read even bandwidth X (standard 1500).. Does it make any sense to complex up the network with jumbo to gain that extra speed jumbo could provide?
There is no freaking way jumbo gives you this sort of boost
[image: 1745997999102-speed.jpg]
You have something else going on there.. If you are only seeing 3.2 on 1500, and 9.4 on jumbo.
@mythos1357 said in The Dreaded PFSense as a Switch (Temporarily):
Stress is always self induced and a silly thing to do
Wise words for sure..
Life throws things at you - but yeah stressing about anything for sure is always self induced ;)
@froussy if you're local.. Sure just change the ip on the lan and your good to go.. Since you would be able to touch anything that is not dhcp, etc.
And you can always console into pfsense, etc
@Jarhead said in [Newbie] Setup VLANs - connecting clients to it?:
You have port 4 on the router going to port 1 on the switch, correct?
correct
@Jarhead said in [Newbie] Setup VLANs - connecting clients to it?:
PVID 1 on port 1 is not a problem, that would just carry your untagged traffic on igc3.
check
@Jarhead said in [Newbie] Setup VLANs - connecting clients to it?:
Turn on the DHCP server on all the vlans and then plug in to switchport 5, do you get an address?
I don't understand what just happened. I have switched on DHCP for all VLANs and have received a correct IP on the corresponding ports and was also able to call up the interface and reach the gateway via ping.
I then switched the DHCP servers off again, manually set IP addresses on all ports again for the client to match the port and tested... Still works.
Apart from that, I have not made any other changes.
So yes, it works now - so I seem to have understood the principle correctly after all. Shall we blame the switch? :D
BIG THANKS TO YOU! You rarely experience such patience with a newbie these days!
for doing this task ,
you'd better buy hardware with multiple network cards for the NUC
Mini PC Windows Intel N100, Celeron J6412, HDMI, DP, RS232, COM, RJ45, LAN, PCIE, Wi-Fi, fanless,
