ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded
-
@jason4532 said in ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded:
My plan is two have two separate networks on different static ips
ideally with no nat on the pfsense box
That seemed pretty clear to me to what he is wanting to do.. Not sure what is confusing about that for you.
-
@cyberconsultants basically all I am trying to do is the following.
I have two dream machines I want each to have their own static Wan ip. I plan on using the pfsense box to give each DM box their own static ip via their own port from the pfsense box . I don't want pfsense to do nat/firewall for either network.
-
@jason4532 so break that /29 to 2 /30s and then there you go.. Just like already went over.. But @cyberconsultants seems to be confused..
An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11 -
@johnpoz said in ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded:
yeah assigned you a "LAN SUBNET: 71.100.8.232 255.255.255.248" that they routed to you.. if you want to create 2 networks from that you would have to subnet it 2 /30's or they would overlap
Does the isp need to subnet it or can I just set my interfaces with /30 ?
-
@jason4532 no the isp doesn't need to do anything.. They already routed the /29 to you.. Just put one /30 on interface 1 and the other /30 on interface 2
-
@jason4532 still would like to see LAN interface config screencap to confirm because part of your earlier reply was a bit confusing. (i.e., "Lan is configured with the .8.233 with dhcp have connectivity.")
set pfSense configuration aside for a moment. how are the UDMs going to connect to the pfSense host? you want them to connect directly to their own individual pfSense interfaces on the Intel NIC, correct?
if so, you could bridge LAN and OPT interfaces (Interfaces / Bridges) which would allow both interfaces to occupy the same subnet.
-
@johnpoz said in ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded:
But @cyberconsultants seems to be confused..
i henceforth dub thee King Of Kludge!
-
@cyberconsultants How is subnetting a /29 that is routed to you to 2 /30s kluge?
-
@johnpoz because bridging the interfaces might be the more elegant solution.
*kludge
-
@cyberconsultants said in ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded:
bridging the interfaces
<rolleyes> yeah have fun with that.. And that clearly does not meet his request of
have two separate networks
Do you need "separate" defined for you?
-
@johnpoz do the words 'additional routing overhead' mean anything to you? when's the last time a curmudgeon like you had an earnest discussion about the OSI model, internal dialogue or otherwise?
-
@cyberconsultants routing overhead for 2 segments? So which do you think is more optimal routing the traffic or bridging it? Which he then still has to route the /29 anyway.
Here is my opinion, it sure and the hell is not bridging it.. He would be better off buying a 20$ gig switch and using that vs software bridging on his "router"..
But sure you go ahead and walk him through the bridge setup.. He couldn't even figure out what the isp was telling him, have fun walking him through the bridging setup..
You know what kluge is, trying to leverage discrete interfaces as switch ports via software bridge..
-
@johnpoz said in ISP handed me a block of IP's confused as how to configure as worded:
He would be better off buying a 20$ gig switch and using that vs software bridging on his "router"..
on that we can maybe agree. would need to see actual throughput comparison though. i doubt it's material enough (if at all) to justify another piece of hardware. perfectly capable XG-1537 OP is working with here.
You know what kluge is, trying to leverage discrete interfaces as switch ports via software bridge..
subnetting for the sake of subnetting certainly strikes as inelegant. bridging would allow all "LAN" interfaces to exist on the single 71.100.8.232/29 subnet.
and as to your shot earlier about whether i need "separate" defined for me—you gotta think bigger picture, John. what do you think is gonna be on the inside of each UDM?
kluge
*kludge. i didn't make this word up.
