Dual wan and failover with dynamic ip address
-
The substitutes of the interfacenames would be nicer but this is cool too :)
-
The substitutes of the interfacenames would be nicer but this is cool too :)
We can work around this of course if the code works :)
–Bill
-
I found my mistake on load_balancer_pool_edit.php. When click add pool, the interface name was undifined. Now I corrected it. Pls download the correct one again if you already download it.
http://www.monetcom.co.kr/download/loadbalance.zip
And I found that rc.newwanip is not correctly copied to pfsense. If you have this problem also, you can edit it just adding below code at the bottom of rc.newwanip.
/* reload slbd */
slbd_configure();
log_error("Configuring slbd"); -
Well I'd have to say this guy fixed all my issues with this little update, OMG this is awesome. Been working on getting load balancing to work with my cable modem and my DSL all day. Ran across this, implemented it, and wham, it's all working… Thank you sooooo much for this addition.
Well since he helped me so much, I thought I would add to it also. I modified the config interface to allow picking what interface you want to add to the pool from a list. And added the ability to pick the Gateway's address from a list also, among other options too. (See attached image)
A quick note though, one reason, on top of being dynamic, why I couldn't get the dang balancing to work all day was because my cable provider disabled ping to it's gateway.... As soon as I set it to my web hosting companies IP, it all come "online."
Just update the files appropriately in /usr/local/www
http://www.webhostingspot.com/pfSense.rarQuestion, before I start messing around I'd thought I'd ask fisrt.
With all this load balancing working and all, how do I configure pfSense so that all SMTP traffic on my network goes out through the WAN interface only?P.S. How the heck do I get my FTP outbound working now?
 -
Question, before I start messing around I'd thought I'd ask fisrt.
With all this load balancing working and all, how do I configure pfSense so that all SMTP traffic on my network goes out through the WAN interface only?Thats policy based routing.
set up a rule allowing SMTP and in that rule specify the WAN interface as gateway. make sure that this rule is above the others. -
P.S. How the heck do I get my FTP outbound working now?
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,2282.msg13472.html#msg13472
-
@sai:
Thats policy based routing.
set up a rule allowing SMTP and in that rule specify the WAN interface as gateway. make sure that this rule is above the others.I'm assuming you are talking about a NAT rule and not a firewall rule. Adding this NAT rule is not going to mess up the auto generated load balancing rule? Am I supposed to select "Enable advanced outbound NAT" to add my own NAT rules? What exactly does "Enable advanced outbound NAT" mean and do? And if there was an auto generated NAT rule, where is it? Why doesn't it show up in the NAT rule list, it should? When need be, add auto generated NAT rules, for warn the admin though, and allow the admin to control the NAT rules. Don't control NAT rules, just help generate them.
Being Check Point FW1 NG certified, I'm very familiar with NAT and firewall rules. It's taking a bit of a learning curve to use pfSense, but not much. pfSense reminds me of CheckPoint a LOT! Personally, I think if you got this stable enough it could easily compete with a single instance CheckPoint setup.
Just need to add the capability of Application-level packet inspection, so that you can drop packets for a certain apps (like IM or P2P). And it would be neck and neck with CheckPoint.
-
P.S. How the heck do I get my FTP outbound working now?
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,2282.msg13472.html#msg13472
Ok, I've verified that all my interfaces don't have "Disable the userland FTP-Proxy application" checked. And my firewall rules allow from LAN interface all outbound activity to any. Still no work.
P.S. What is the userland FTP-Proxy application? And why is it used? What's different from lets say SMTP connection and a FTP connection that is not allowing FTP?
-
Reread the post, you need to add an additional Rule at the top of your firewallrules. It's not only the ftp helper setting. For further information on the ftp helper please search the forum. This has been covered in deptch already several times.
-
What about reply #22?
-
Firewallrules determine through which interface the traffic is leaving for policybased routing (gatewaysetting). Advanced outbound NAT let's you specify what happens with traffic that is leaving through an interface (if it should be natted or not or if you have multiple Virtual IPs to which of the IPs). If advanced outbound NAT is disable NAT will happen on all interfaces that have a gateway configured. It then will translate the traffic to the interface IP of the pfSense. If you enable advanced outbound NAT you have to set up your own rules. Everything not specified in the rules will just be routed without NAT. Enabling advanced outbound NAT will generate a NAT-rule for traffic going from LAN to WAN for your reference.
-
We may want the interface dialog to be a drop down of interfaces. Not sure if that works with the current javascript though.
Looks like we want this in.
-
Hold on, didn't read the second page. Looks like we want to split the server side load balancing and outbound load balancing.
I'll have a look at this tomorrow.
-
GotzBoost. I tried your page but it doesn't work yet. It does not appear to set the correct interface name via javascript into the poolbox.
Are those 2 files in the pfsense.rar really the only edited files?
-
No, my files are an addition to sbyoon's modification. So apply his mod first, and then mine.
-
Well, it worked fine after refreshing everything. I think the javascript got cached. Because it worked for others the first time.
I have up-to-date patches available on my site. http://iserv.nl/files/pfsense/slbd/
The code is already committed into CVS. Releng_1 is under discussion.
-
What is Releng_1? At the moment the drop down for ping/gateway IP get's set to what ever the IP is at that point in time. It doesn't get updated when ever the WAN/OPTx gets a new IP. I was going to look at how sbyoon modified the code to update the IP upon a DHCP renew and make it allow to do the same for the ping/gateway IP.
Even though it's preferrably to find a hard coded IP out in the space to ping, as in some gateways don't allow you to ping them. As it was in my case.
Or here's another better idea, don't ping somthing to see if the net is up or down. Rather do a trace route with a max hop of ~3(let this be configurable), if it comes back with ~3 hops at least, then the interface is up. That will do one of two thing, make sure that you can actually get to the net and not just your ISP, and also cut down on unwanted/needed ping traffic.
Case in point, Time Warner had a router go out >:( (for about 48 hours :o), I could get to any of TW sites, but not the net. So, half of my traffic that was going out my cable modem was failing and the other half that was going out my DSL was OK. If the trace route was in use, then my cable modem would have been automaticly set to down, and fail over to my DSL.
-
That's a slbd issue and currently not feasible to implement. The slbd checks need to be fast and light, and traceroute is neither. Furthermore I have seen far more routers block traceroute then I have them seen ping.
I'll have to look at the gateway ping implementation. Although I think that is handled by the rc.newwanip code and the filter.inc fixes syboon already applied.
For all intents and purposes, a router should never block ICMP traffic is that is integral to the operation of the tcp/ip protocol.
We are currently testing multi interface dhcp with the new dhcp clients but at this point in time it is not working just yet.
-
Ok, let me rephrase that. The router blocked ICMP traffic to itself, not all ICMP traffic going through it. And yes they do this quite often for security precautions. In some of the CCNA classes I've been in they've even tought that as a rule of thumb. "The only thing a public router needs to do is route, don't let it waste's it's time on anything else. And the last thing you want is a router that crashed from a flaw overlooked in some TCP stack from a ping."
Security: Rule of thumb, block everything, then only open what's needed.
What are you testing with multi interface dhcp? I have it now, with this fix, and it's working perfectly.
-
multi dhcp specifically in the later snapshots > 20-12-2006.
1.0.1 should work fine in that respect.