@miracullix So just bridge the ports together and give it a try. You can always "undo" what you setup - go in reverse order to tear it all apart. Under Interfaces, select the Bridge button. In there, click the Add button. In there add the 2 ports you want together (use the shift key on the keyboard to select multiple ports) and then click the Save button. Keep in mind, the only interfaces you can add to a bridge are "enabled" interfaces. In other words, they have to be active. I think the 4100 comes with all interface ports enabled. So, now that you have a bridge added, you have to enable it and set it up. Be careful here, I think you could inadvertently lose your LAN connection and the IP address range you already had on it. Long story short, I don't believe you can simply click a couple of buttons and add another available interface to a bridge. There's a little bit of setup, and some pretty good setting tweaks. And, obviously the performance hit. So, that's why it's said to just add a switch to keep it simple. Hope that helps...

@aaronouthier said in Managed switch question.: there are 3 routers and an 8-port ethernet switch within a 2 ft. Sq. Area Shorter ethernet cables helps in this. I have a bunch of 12" cables for just that reason on my cabinet.

@jarhead said in Inter VLAN - Can't reach some devices: @creationguy So you can access them from the same vlan but not from others. Sounds like a gateway. Do you have the correct gateway set in the cameras? I think you nailed it there. While I do have DHCP static set up in pfsense, I manually applied the IP in the camera, leaving the gateway blank, just in case DHCP messed up. I'll add it in and see.

@johnpoz Ok I understand now, I didn't get it when reading the tutorial. I feel stupid now, sorry about that.

@natethegreat21 I'd be looking on ebay for some Cisco small business switches that support vlans & POE.

@johnpoz said in Proper FW rules for PVLAN: @jt40 said in Proper FW rules for PVLAN: if I want to block the traffic from VLAN1 to VLAN2, shall I write a block rule from VLAN1? Correct the rule would go on the vlan1 interface, you block traffic before it enters pfsense.. Why would you allow traffic into your house and then stop them from leaving your house. Here is an analogy I like... Someone knocks at your front door and says hey can I go to your back yard.. Do you let them into the house and let them walk through your living room with their dirty shoes and then stop them as they try and leave out your backdoor. Or do you just not let them in the front door in the first place ;) With this, I'll never forget it :D @johnpoz said in Proper FW rules for PVLAN: @jt40 said in Proper FW rules for PVLAN: I could prove that L2 isolation from Ubiquity works only for certain devices No idea what that is suppose to mean, I have unifi AP and had no issues with L2 isolation. So not sure what your doing or asking about. Your talking about devices connected to the same SSID/vlan not able to talk to each other? Are they both wireless, is one wireless and other wired? Are you trying to stop a wireless client from talking to wired client on the same L2? Or a wired client on the same L2 from talking to the wireless client on that L2. Pfsense has zero to do with devices on the same L2 network from talking to each other - there is no way pfsense could do that, unless you setup device A on one side of bridge and client B was on the other side of the bridge. I mean that by default, L2 isolation is not behaving in the way I expect, it should block the traffic between the 2 SSIDs I have, but it doesn't completely, some device is able to ping the other one, some not. Plus, the same story is between the SSID VLAN and another "wired" VLAN, which comes from the switch, nothing to do with the AP. Anyway, I've been testing a lot and I can see that nothing major changed. These below are the most remarkable scenarios: I create a rule to stop the traffic from one VLAN to all the others. How did I do it? I created an alias with the correct IP range of all the VLANs, obviously is much more extensive but it's fine. It doesn't work unfortunately, or it's intermittent, it's not the first time that I end up in this situation in Pfsense, not even a system reboot helped. On the fly, I also tried to clear the DHCP leases, reset the filter table, reset the state table etc, no positive result. If I enable the rule above only, it goes in that intermittent behaviour, but after it blocks the traffic (almost entirely), there is no way back... If I also add up a rule to stop the firewall access from that VLAN, it locks that too. It doesn't make much sense this behaviour because the filter rules are reloaded almost on the fly, I could have considered my IP range as an issue if it didn't happen in real time... There is one problem here, the gateway IP is in that range obviously, so, technically speaking, it makes sense to be locked out... There is one funny thing though, the ping to 8.8.8.8 works :D , and this is the second inconsistency that I find with Pfsense... The same ping to the modem/router works, which is out of range in that rule alias, but still, the Gateway IP is the first entry point and it should be blocked, so why it doesn't block everything... I mean, how did I reach the modem/router without passing from the default VLAN gateway, which should be blocked... Below I list more details: VLAN 1 Gateway IP: 10.70.70.1 (this should be blocked) Machine IP: 10.70.70.2 Modem/router: 192.168.0.1 VLAN 2 Gateway IP: 10.70.71.1 (this should be blocked) Machine IP: 10.70.71.2 Modem/router: 192.168.0.1 The funny story is always the same, if I create a rule to allow the traffic from the VLAN 1 network to ANY, everything works, but I need to block the traffic to the firewall IPs (usually set automatically as every VLAN gateway IP), plus I need to block the traffic to other VLANs. NOTE that what you said it's not valid in my box, Pfsense doesn't allow the traffic automatically everywhere, it blocks the traffic but not ping, so I need to create a dedicated rule to allow the traffic. I can do the extensive manual test to lock these things one by one, but there is already some weird behaviour, I don't think it will change much... I'll also try to act from other VLANs where I have other devices, in this VLAN used for testing, I smell Microsoft issues...

@terramoto said in LAN + VLAN on same interface: @johnpoz The tag, untag would have to be done at each powerline node. Nope it would be done off a switch the other side of the powerline device. Like this, just imaging the AP hanging off switch-3:- [image: 1661182441886-image-resized.png] Ah the powerline devices are doing the Wi-Fi as well, you need access-points.

@lonnie Yeah, that's one of the reasons we don't typically recommend bridges.

@fgervais Yes firewall rules on the interfaces or on the bridge or NAT rules affect this traffic. Also consider the values of the tuneables net.link.bridge.pfil_member net.link.bridge.pfil_bridge

Interfaces/Assignments/Bridges/ Edit [image: 1660917007806-img_1056-resized.jpeg]

@swemattias while I would agree with you on the mini its a bit off. Switches are switches are switch, vlans are vlans are vlans. The vlan is either tagged or it isn't.. When you connect a end user device to a port on a switch is is almost always untagged.. Unless you have gone into the OS of that device and specifically set it to understand a tag.. Almost always a end user device will be untagged on a switch port, with the port in that vlan, and the pvid set on the port that you want the traffic to be in.

@johnpoz Yep, brand new smart switch. Thank you for your time!

@sledge As long as your switches are managed you would just trunk the uplinks and they'll carry the vlans with no problem.

@steveits Thanks for the help Steve! Bridge worked :)

I've finally managed to get this fixed, thanks to a kind soul found on the Internet. I basically got schooled(again!) on layer 2 traffic and having an extra pair of eyes go through the firewall config, I found out what the problem was. I was basically trying to shoehorn VLAN traffic through the switch and causing a loop(even with loop prevention turned off). However, this was not affecting my regular traffic which made me continue to troubleshoot and assume that my configuration was correct. Considering my requirement has been that VMs talk to each and gets update over the internet and nothing outside of these VLANs, I added another interface to pfsense(trunk port) and in pfsense, changed the VLANs to be going through the new interface, rather than still pushing it through the physical LAN which I was trying to do. I now get DHCP AND the machines are able to reach out to the internet. Once I added the trunk network interface as an additional NIC, it showed up as a 3rd interface on pfsense which showed as vmx2 [image: 1660456338025-ef00ec88-22ea-4b6e-a5cb-a5cd24c95b2e-image.png] I used the third NIC to pass my VLAN traffic [image: 1660456478092-97e9f5c0-4b2a-4482-8320-999d1e4bbdaf-image-resized.png] Earlier, I had configured VLAN to be going vmx1, by letting the traffic go out through the LAN/Trust interface and then trying to get it back through the same port (since I didn't have another NIC free on ESXi). Now, all my VMs are getting the correct IP address range

Well I would have preferred not to go in the « advanced user only » box on my first day but sometimes you gotta run before you can walk: ifconfig bridge0 addr

@fgervais Thanks! Than my problem is probably related to the Hyper-V vSwitch I was using.

@jarhead Are you actually seeing a problem or just a few counters and only when you reboot? Lots of things happen when a system is rebooted and not just on the pfSense side. Assuming you're connected to a switch which also will run through some link up/link down procedures. If I was only seeing a few error counters on reboot and then no further incrementing or problems, I would personally move on to something else. You'll likely need to send screen shots of the interface assignment page and detail exactly what you are doing to attempt to reassign the VLAN to the physical if.

@martywise have you tried to reconfigure the native lan for the port connected to your pfsense box. You could make the native lan of the switch trunk port different than the rest of the switch so it doesn't pass data other ports having same native vlan

@bigups43 Yes. The big advantage of stackable switches that that you have redundancy as you can run a single LAGG over multiple switches.