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

    New build: migrating from Sonicwall

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    11 Posts 2 Posters 947 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.
    • stephenw10S
      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
      last edited by

      Using DMZ mode for the interface pfSense is connected to would probably be easiest. You would end up with dual NAT for devices behind pfSense but that probably won't be an issue.

      If you have multiple public IPs you could try to bridge one of them to pfSense directly somehow.

      Steve

      MotozoicM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • MotozoicM
        Motozoic @stephenw10
        last edited by

        @stephenw10
        Only one public IP, AFAIK. Simple Comcast Xfinity cable modem service with roughly 200 Mbps down, 12.5 up. I actually tried setting up the DMZ and failed. I've currently got it connected to one of the wired interfaces on a Unifi Edgeswitch at the moment and have come to terms with a cut over that will take down the network for a day or less.

        I created new VLANs for my servers, workstations, cameras, IOT devices, HVAC and general wireless clients. I then suddenly realized that I might not have a way to assign wireless clients to a specific VLAN without MAC-based VLAN assignment. As my cameras, IOT devices, HVAC and all other wireless clients will be connected to an Amplifi HD mesh network running in bridge mode, pfSense would have to implement MAC-based VLAN assignment to get them into the right VLANs.

        Currently, on the TZ400, I have MAC based address objects for wireless devices and have created address groups for cameras, HVAC, etc. This allows me to assign group specific IP ranges. While not segregated using VLANs, it achieves the same end result. Not sure I can replicate this with pfSense, but that is likely just my lack of knowledge with the system perhaps.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • stephenw10S
          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
          last edited by

          MAC based VLAN assignment would be done at the switch or access point not the router/firewall. By the time traffic arrives at pfSense it would already be tagged.

          MotozoicM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • jimpJ jimp moved this topic from Problems Installing or Upgrading pfSense Software on
          • MotozoicM
            Motozoic @stephenw10
            last edited by

            @stephenw10
            Thanks for clarifying this. It looks like I will probably need to upgrade my switch from an Edgeswitch 18X to a USW-Pro-48-PoE that I have collecting dust in my office. I believe the larger switch allows for MAC-based filtering... might still be a little while yet before switching to pfSense in that case.

            MotozoicM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • MotozoicM
              Motozoic @Motozoic
              last edited by

              I have a 4-port Intel NIC arriving next week and it dawned on me that perhaps I could gain some performance and make the overall configuration simpler by using it to segregate networks. I currently have only 2 networks, however: one for servers and workstations and another for all of the wireless stuff (IOT, cameras, HVAC, etc.). My existing Edgeswitch X does have VLAN tagging facilities, just not MAC address based tagging capability. All I want to do is the following:

              • Certainly segregate the servers & workstations from anything wireless.
              • Have exceptions to this rule for specific devices (currently implemented based on MAC and IP ranges).

              I've become very hung up on the wireless client segregation. Since the wireless clients are a smorgasbord of contexts (IOT, cameras, HVAC, etc.) and my WAP (Amplifi HD in bridged mode) does not have any way to segregate traffic itself, I was thinking that VLAN tagging could achieve that. The Amplifi system is a single port connection to the core switch, so there's no way to segregate the contexts on different physical interfaces. I think VLAN tagging is the only way to do this, but I feel like I might be overcomplicating things and am not an expert in networking either.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by stephenw10

                You could just use multiple SSIDs on different VLANs to seperate the wireless clients. That's what most people do. If the AP has that function.

                MotozoicM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • MotozoicM
                  Motozoic @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  It looks like the Amplifi HD does support VLAN tagging, but only if it's running in its normal router mode. Since I'm currently running a Sonicwall router (to be replaced with pfSense), my understanding is that I need to run Amplifi in its bridged mode, so no tagging by the system itself.

                  I do see that it can still setup additional SSIDs, including one specifically for an IoT network which creates a 192.168.251.x subnet for isolation. It seems that would work for all the wireless clients, but as far as VLAN tagging is concerned, one of my other network appliances would have to do that. I was thinking perhaps one of my Unifi switches may be able to do that? One switch is an Edgeswitch X, which I'm fairly certain would not be able to do that, but I believe the larger 48-port (enterprise grade) unit runs a completely different firmware and can be configured using Unifi Network Controller... it may be able to do some more advanced configuration with regards to VLAN tagging of attached devices. Not sure, though.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    Hmm aren't those Ubiquity devices? I'm surprised they can't do multiple SSIDs bridged to different VLANs, pretty sure most of their other devices do.

                    MotozoicM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • MotozoicM
                      Motozoic @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      My switches are Ubiquity devices and so is the Amplifi HD mesh network system. The switches are enterprise grade, but the Amplifi system is not. So, I guess it's possible that the switches may be able to do some tagging based on SSID, but I don't know. Might be a question worth posing on the UI community forum.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stephenw10S
                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                        last edited by

                        That would need to be done at the AP. Nothing beyond that sees the SSID.

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