Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    One tunnel multiple peers?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved WireGuard
    41 Posts 2 Posters 9.6k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • F
      f.meunier @f.meunier
      last edited by

      the routes to 172.16.16.0/24 and 10.0.0.0/24 should appear in the list

      (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        swemattias @f.meunier
        last edited by

        @f-meunier This is what I get out cut out the lines with the right info in them:

        10.0.0/24         link#16            UCS             utun5       
        127                  127.0.0.1          UCS               lo0       
        127.0.0.1          127.0.0.1          UH                lo0       
        172.16.16/24   172.16.16.1      UGSc            utun5       
        172.16.16.1      172.16.16.1      UH              utun5
        
        F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • F
          f.meunier @swemattias
          last edited by f.meunier

          @swemattias
          well, your tunnel seems effectively up, and the routes are there.
          what is the pfSense config of LAN interface ? 4th byte of 10.0.0.x address ?

          (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

          F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • F
            f.meunier @f.meunier
            last edited by

            can you give the pfSense STATUS > Wireguard
            (click on Show peers to see the details)

            (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

            F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • F
              f.meunier @f.meunier
              last edited by f.meunier

              One last check on WG_INTERFACE

              Verify that "Block private networks and loopback addresses" and "Block bogon networks" are UNCHECKED
              43af513d-591c-4149-b2ff-d4fde42ec683-image.png

              (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

              F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • F
                f.meunier @f.meunier
                last edited by

                nevertheless, ping 172.16.16.254 should work...

                (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

                F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • F
                  f.meunier @f.meunier
                  last edited by f.meunier

                  what is curious :
                  route 10.0.0.0/24 should be accessible through a gateway -> flag " G" missing.

                  really need to know your macOSX LAN IP...

                  also can you explain "I can surf and write this through this tunnel, but I cannot reach the inside."

                  (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

                  F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • F
                    f.meunier @f.meunier
                    last edited by

                    set up a debian client to check

                    Got a route to wg subnet and pfSense (172.16.16.254 in your case)
                    Had no route to the remote LAN subnet (10.0.0.0/24 in your case)
                    (bizarre since it's in the WG client config !)

                    Eventually, I manually added the route to 10.0.0.0/24
                    ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev wg0

                    Now I can ping a machine in subnet 10.0.0.0/24

                    I will check why the route is not automatically added in the routing table even though it is present in AllowedIPs list...
                    It IS automatically added on windows client...

                    (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

                    F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • F
                      f.meunier @f.meunier
                      last edited by

                      Succeeded (on linux) using wg-quick tool
                      (it creates the interfaces, assigns IP and creates routes)

                      fm@debian11:~$ wg-quick up /home/fm/wg0.conf
                      [#] ip link add wg0 type wireguard
                      [#] wg setconf wg0 /dev/fd/63
                      [#] ip -4 address add 192.168.201.3/24 dev wg0
                      [#] ip link set mtu 1420 up dev wg0
                      [#] ip -4 route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev wg0
                      

                      (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

                      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        swemattias @f.meunier
                        last edited by swemattias

                        @f-meunier Thanks for all the help! It took days before I had time to return to this by then I remembered a video I watched that really explained this to me... and I found it. So now I have a working Wireguard setup using pfSense as the server.
                        This is the video:
                        Lawrence system on Wireguard remote home

                        F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • F
                          f.meunier @swemattias
                          last edited by

                          @swemattias
                          Glad to sse you got through !

                          For the record (and the community) could you tell us what was wrong initially ?

                          (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

                          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S
                            swemattias @f.meunier
                            last edited by

                            @f-meunier I wish I knew... some miss config from my part. If I had to guess I would say I mixed up the keys...
                            The video also shows how do do the original question of this thread, one tunnel multiple peers.

                            F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • F
                              f.meunier @swemattias
                              last edited by

                              @swemattias
                              Yes, multiple peers with the same goal / security rules = 1 tunnel, x peers

                              I shall advise multiple tunnels only when you have different populations of peers (let's say internal users, external users or customers, etc.)

                              Have a nice day !

                              (mostly ZOTAC CI or CA nano barebones)

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.