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

    High Availability with Multi-WAN and Multi-LAN

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved HA/CARP/VIPs
    13 Posts 4 Posters 2.7k 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.
    • bitrotB
      bitrot
      last edited by

      Thanks for the clarification. I actually don't need or even want the two LAN segments to be able to reach each other. So in that case, does this mean then that in each LAN segment the firewall rule can use the respective gateway group in the firewall rule?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • jimpJ
        jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
        last edited by

        In that case you'll want rules at the top of each tab to block traffic from reaching the other LAN (also without a gateway because block rules don't need gateways).

        Don't rely on the gateway being there as the only thing keeping the LAN(s) isolated, since if the gateway/group is down, it will be omitted from the rule by default, so then traffic could flow between them. There is an option to change that behavior, but it's still a bad security practice.

        Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

        Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

        Do not Chat/PM for help!

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • bitrotB
          bitrot
          last edited by

          Great. That makes sense and agree with the reasoning.
          Just to make sure I understand correctly then:
          In the Firewall rules, I will create two rules in each LAN segment. The top rule explicitly blocking all traffic from reaching the other LAN segment (without a gateway). Below that the allow rule using the respective gateway group. Is that right?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • jimpJ
            jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
            last edited by

            At a minimum, yes. You can get much fancier/more fine-grained than that if you like.

            Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

            Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

            Do not Chat/PM for help!

            R 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • R
              reberhar @jimp
              last edited by reberhar

              So if there is only one LAN connection and no DMZ, there would be no need for any such rules, right?

              There would be no cross Lan traffic, or DMZ traffic to direct to or block. The example is just included incase such conditions exist.

              Although I have done several HA's, the one I am doing now is my first multi-wan attempt.

              Thanks

              R senseivitaS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • R
                reberhar @reberhar
                last edited by

                This post is deleted!
                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • senseivitaS
                  senseivita @reberhar
                  last edited by

                  @reberhar When you add the third interface to pfSense (WAN, LAN, OPT1-third) it changes its behavior from ultra-permissive to default block, no rules on an interfaces mean no traffic.

                  Without a gateway set on the rules, it uses itself as the gateway (connected routes), then the default gateway (or gateway groups). If you set gateways on all rules other than the default, you bypass pfSense altogether — if traffic matches the rule. If you use the firewalls' services, e.g; DNS, a rule without gateway should come before the policy routing rules. 💡

                  Missing something? Word endings, maybe? I included a free puzzle in this msg if you solv--okay, I'm lying. It's dyslexia, makes me do that, sorry! Just finish the word; they're rarely misspelled, just incomplete. Yeah-yeah-I know. Same thing.

                  R 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • R
                    reberhar @senseivita
                    last edited by reberhar

                    This post is deleted!
                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • R
                      reberhar @senseivita
                      last edited by reberhar

                      @senseivita

                      Of course there are other rules that were in place when pfSense was not HA. There are the rollover rules and the rule in the LAN set that directs traffic to them.

                      I made a copy of the original system and brought up two pfSense instances, doctoring them to the place of HA.

                      ... However, if you could give me an example of such a rule that would be helpful. I am using 4 wans, there were 5 but there was a problem with one of the wans having to pass through the switch connected to the lan and then to the wan port. With multicasting that was a disaster.

                      This concept with the default wan is a little unclear. If I send my traffic to the default wan, how does it get the the gateway groups?

                      Thanks for your patience.

                      I am trying to figure out how to past a graphic ...

                      Floating
                      WAN1
                      LAN
                      WAN2
                      WAN3
                      SYNC
                      WAN5
                      OpenVPN
                      Rules (Drag to Change Order)
                      States Protocol Source Port Destination Port Gateway Queue Schedule Description Actions
                      19 /904 KiB

                          • LAN Address 4443
                            80
                            2244 * * Anti-Lockout Rule
                            0 /0 B
                            IPv4 TCP * * 10.2.0.48 4443 * none LAN 48 admin
                            48 /55 KiB
                            IPv4 UDP * * LAN net 53 (DNS) * none Allow DNS to pfsense
                            0 /1 KiB
                            IPv4 UDP LAN net * * 53 (DNS) * none Block and DNS requist outside of pfsense
                            0 /0 B
                            IPv4 * 10.2.1.178 * * * * none Block unknown client for abuse
                            0 /0 B
                            IPv4 * 10.2.0.171 * * * * none Block unknown client for abuse
                            0 /4 KiB
                            IPv4 * 10.2.0.206 * * * * none Block unknown client for abuse
                            0 /0 B
                            IPv4 * 10.2.1.74 * * * * none Block unknown client for abuse
                            299 /16.70 MiB
                            IPv4 * LAN net * * * Infinitumn none Default allow LAN to any rule
                            0 /0 B
                            IPv6 * LAN net * * * * none Default allow LAN IPv6 to any rule

                      Infinitumn is the gateway group

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • R
                        reberhar
                        last edited by

                        Ok - I think I've got it or am getting it. I knew about the third interface being blocked by default, but I had not much thought about actually deflecting the flow before the end of the rule set and what that really meant. I will be inspecting my installs and relearning some firewall rule functions I thought I understood. It is quite true that as soon as you have more than one WAN things get more complicated.

                        Thanks

                        R 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • R
                          reberhar @reberhar
                          last edited by

                          @reberhar Yes of course. Why would you want to choose a gateway for every rule.

                          I was just caught in the verbage.

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