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

    pfSense Exit Node Direct Connections

    Tailscale
    4
    8
    1.3k
    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.
    • cwagzC
      cwagz
      last edited by

      I have my pfSense box configured as an exit node to replace the mobile IPsec configuration I was using before. There are no Tailscale clients inside my local network. I have several mobile devices that need to connect to the Tailscale exit node when they are away from home.

      Everything is working except I can only get direct connections when the mobile devices are on the cellular network. Once they are at a workplace and behind another router they stay stuck in relay mode.

      It seems like all the information I find is related to setting up pfSense to make sure that Tailscale clients behind pfSense are able to use NAT-PMP or static NAT rules in order to facilitate direct connections. Are there any rules that need to be setup to make it easier for remote clients to create direct connections to an exit node running directly on pfSense?

      Netgate 6100 MAX

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • cwagzC
        cwagz
        last edited by

        After a crazy amount of web searching, I ran across this blog: https://blog.pilif.me/2022/07/28/tailscale-on-pfsense/

        Creating the WAN rule to allow traffic to port 41641 has allowed all the machines that were previously relayed 100% of the time to connect directly.

        If anyone sees anything inherently dangerous about this rule, please let me know. Otherwise, hopefully this will help someone else to have more direct connections to their pfSense exit node / subnet router.

        354b4616-7c6a-4c73-9266-86137d9c8624-image.png

        Netgate 6100 MAX

        S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
        • S
          shabiros @cwagz
          last edited by

          @cwagz Came to say thank you this worked a treat!

          All the available guides talk about NAT outbound rules (but I presume that is for older versions). A simple input of this wan rule and immediately I can have a direct connection to my network over cellular 🙌

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
          • C
            chickendog
            last edited by chickendog

            Same here. Glad I found this!

            EDIT: I think the only thing I would say to clean up the rule in this scenario is to have the destination be the WAN address? We are using the pfSense as an exit node itself so it doesn't need to pass 41641 through to the LAN as well.
            If you're accessing anything behind the router it will just route it as normal.
            This is the same for a WireGuard road warrior setup.

            B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • B
              bearach @chickendog
              last edited by

              @chickendog Perchance are you using pfSense as an exit node for other clients from another pfSense? I cannot figure out how to route particular clients from site A out to site B as an exit node.

              C 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • C
                chickendog @bearach
                last edited by

                @bearach Sorry no I am not. My clients to my pfSense is my phone and a couple laptops that connect to various public/office networks while I'm away from home.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • C
                  chickendog @bearach
                  last edited by

                  @bearach I don't think it's possible. You can't set the Tailscale package to use an exit node.

                  See this for a hacky method someone came up with, maybe see if that could work for you.
                  https://forum.netgate.com/topic/175712/use-other-tailscale-exit-nodes/5

                  B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • B
                    bearach @chickendog
                    last edited by

                    @chickendog I've been looking at this for a while and I believe that is indeed the case. Thanks for confirming.

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