Subnet/VLANs with managed and unmanaged switches
-
Those ports are connected as default VLAN1 on the switch.
They are not supposed to be the default VLAN1.
VLAN1 (default) are all the ports that are "not in a VLAN".
…
But the point of moving the LAN to a VLAN is: NOT USING VLAN1:) yes exactly. But since I'm not making the complete switch yet (moving one network at a time), I still need to access VLAN1, everything that is not on a VLAN. So what I was hoping to do is have one interface on pfSense that would have access to everything not on a VLAN and all the VLANs. :)
-
Aha now i get it ;D
Well i suppose as long as it's only temporarily you could assign the interface directly.
Of course a second interface would work too.It's not like that it wont work, it's just "bad" design.
"bad" as in mixing tagged and untagged traffic on the same wire.But i dont know if you want to add a 4th NIC just to make the transition :)
When i thinking about it: can you set the trunk on your switch that it eggresses tagged VLAN1 packets?
Or do you mean withI still need to be able to read the 0.x network. Those ports are connected as default VLAN1 on the switch. I also tried making VLAN1 re0 LAN; that didn't work. Maybe I was missing something. Maybe pfSense was properly setup but the switch wasn't. It seemed tagged VLAN traffic went thru but default VLAN1 untagged didn't.
exactly that?
Because it should be possible from the pfSense side to accept tagged VLAN1 packets.
-
Aha now i get it ;D
..
But i dont know if you want to add a 4th NIC just to make the transition :)I may just do that.
When i thinking about it: can you set the trunk on your switch that it eggresses tagged VLAN1 packets?
Or do you mean withI still need to be able to read the 0.x network. Those ports are connected as default VLAN1 on the switch. I also tried making VLAN1 re0 LAN; that didn't work. Maybe I was missing something. Maybe pfSense was properly setup but the switch wasn't. It seemed tagged VLAN traffic went thru but default VLAN1 untagged didn't.
exactly that?
Because it should be possible from the pfSense side to accept tagged VLAN1 packets.
I have to try again to see if the Dell switch can tag VLAN1 traffic to the port. I tried setting the Dell to tag traffic to a particular port but it seemed unable to. I tried setting the switch port to something besides trunk (general I think with all ports going tagged) and I think that didn't work.
I may try again with VLAN1 on the interface. I was curious about a earlier comment about not having interfaces directly assigned.
Should the LAN interface be assigned anything or can just all the VLANs be attached to interface re0? and LAN have nothing?
-
I may try again with VLAN1 on the interface. I was curious about a earlier comment about not having interfaces directly assigned.
Should the LAN interface be assigned anything or can just all the VLANs be attached to interface re0? and LAN have nothing?
That goes into the same as
It's not like that it wont work, it's just "bad" design.
"bad" as in mixing tagged and untagged traffic on the same wire.You "should" not assign an interface on which VLANs are running.
Like i said: It will work. It's just not good network design.Either Have LAN as VLAN too,
or have another interface as LAN -
Either Have LAN as VLAN too,
or have another interface as LANBy LAN you mean the the LAN itself and not the pfSense LAN interface?
I can go with an additional NIC until we fully switch over but I'm still curious.
I haven't looked into CARP yet. It seems that I would have a CARP ip for each VLAN and WAN and then use that as the default gateway for clients?
I'm almost there. :) Really can't wait to start using pfSense.
-
Lets refer to the physical interface as re0.
I mean: asign the logical LAN-interface either as VLAN on re0, or add another NIC (re1) and assign the LAN-interface directly to re1.CARP is not what you are looking for.
CARP is used for redundant hardware. (Failover on hardware-fail)
Or to create Virtual IPs to/from which you NAT stuff.Each VLAN is a seperate logical interface on pfSense.
Meaning each interface will have its own IP. -
Lets refer to the physical interface as re0.
I mean: asign the logical LAN-interface either as VLAN on re0, or add another NIC (re1) and assign the LAN-interface directly to re1.That's the plan. Should be able to get around to it later today or tomorrow.
CARP is not what you are looking for.
CARP is used for redundant hardware. (Failover on hardware-fail)
Or to create Virtual IPs to/from which you NAT stuff.I would create a Virtual CARP IP on each VLAN interface and then use that as the default route for each VLAN? The idea would be to avoid routing to any real IPs yes?
-
I would create a Virtual CARP IP on each VLAN interface and then use that as the default route for each VLAN? The idea would be to avoid routing to any real IPs yes?
I dont follow.
What is the point of having a router if you dont want to route? -
I would create a Virtual CARP IP on each VLAN interface and then use that as the default route for each VLAN? The idea would be to avoid routing to any real IPs yes?
I dont follow.
What is the point of having a router if you dont want to route?It's just that I haven't read the docs yet. For failover to another router, I would want the default gateway interface on each network to move between routers? So if 192.168.[VLAN].1 was the default route for each network, how would this failover to the 2nd router? By using CARP IPs attached to each VLAN interface?
-
You "should" not assign an interface on which VLANs are running.
You mean for each VLAN, there should be no interface assignments? The following worked before:
re0
LAN
VLAN100 - IP 192.168.100.254I could ping 100.254 from a different port on the switch. Now I have the following which doesn't work. Same switch setup:
sk0 - assigned to 0.254 LAN
se0
interfaces assigned to all VLANs with IPs of 192.168.x.254se0 is trunked. sk0 is reachable of course but se0 (192.168.100.254) is not. My client is on another port with the gateway set to 100.254. Firewall rules are set to allow everything. The interface status does show IN and OUT packets. Maybe it's the switch? The switch setup is the same as when it did with with LAN assigned to VLAN100.
-
You "should" not assign an interface on which VLANs are running.
Maybe you mean if multiple VLANs are assigned to a NIC and have IP addresses, that same NIC should not be assigned to WAN or LAN?
The interface assignments are:
WAN rl0
LAN sk0All OPT interfaces are assigned to a VLAN on re0:
OPT1 - VLAN 1 on re0
OPT2 - VLAN 2 on re0
OPT3 - VLAN 3 on re0WAN and LAN are separate NICs. I got it working. But. All access to WAN works. With LAN (thru sk0), I can only ping or telnet to any of the listening ports. Web/SSH, all traffic shows passing thru the firewall but doesn't come back. Firewall states show:
192.168.100.81:58487 -> 192.168.0.x:22 CLOSING:CLOSED
tcp 192.168.100.81:58574 -> 192.168.0.x:22 SYN_SENT:CLOSED -
@g:
Maybe you mean if multiple VLANs are assigned to a NIC and have IP addresses, that same NIC should not be assigned to WAN or LAN?
I mean about that.
Only WAN and LAN can be VLAN too.Simple: Dont assign a real interfaces if you have VLANs running on them.
On my WRAP this would look like this:
availlable interfaces: sis0, sis1, sis2
LAN: VLAN 1001 on sis0
WAN: sis2
OPT1: VLAN 1101 on sis0
OPT2: VLAN 1201 on sis0
OPT3: VLAN 1301 on sis0
OPT4: VLAN 1401 on sis0
OPT5: sis1As you can see: i dont mix normal assignments and VLAN assignments on the NICs.
But still LAN can be a VLAN, even WAN could be a VLAN.WAN and LAN are separate NICs. I got it working. But. All access to WAN works. With LAN (thru sk0), I can only ping or telnet to any of the listening ports. Web/SSH, all traffic shows passing thru the firewall but doesn't come back.
What exatly do you mean with "all traffic shows passing thru the firewall but doesn't come back."
Where does this traffic go to? Does the destination know the route back to you?
Did you create rules on all interfaces that allow traffic? (per default everything on a new interface is blocked)