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

    Multi Wan routing specific private ip

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Routing and Multi WAN
    14 Posts 3 Posters 5.1k 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.
    • K
      Kalios
      last edited by

      yeah that sounds like what im more after, are you able to share a little more detail i understand vip as virtual ip etc but when i attempted to follow what you said, it crashed pfsense heh, and had to reboot system

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • K
        Kalios
        last edited by

        or maybe i didn explain myself enough, however have tried both, ill try re explaining myself :)

        i have 5 public ip's available, what i would like to do is have pfsense handle all of them and route appropriate lan traffic (individual ip's) to different wan ip's (public) ive given both of your suggestions were, a go and the first one i managed to freeze pfsense up to the point of needing to rebuildm heh and the later wasnt as effective at the first, where pfsense does continue to run but without any accomplishments, so the vip's are sitting there with aon turned on etc

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • dotdashD
          dotdash
          last edited by

          I have never seen pfSense crash, or 'freeze to the point of needing rebuild' (whatever that means) from adding a firewall rule or turning on AON. The instructions you received were correct for what we could guess you were trying to do. You should open a new thread in either the NAT or the VIP forum and provide complete details as to what your configuration is, what you are trying to do, and what is not working as expected.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • K
            Kalios
            last edited by

            ive been given 5 ip's from my ISP, all in the same subnet what i would like to do is setup 2 ip's for Load Balancing i have attempted to load balance with instructions but could be a problem to when i choose the gateway for failover, as th gateways are all the same.

            and the other 3 for a web server, mail server and something else, each of these servers are on my private network, what i would like to achieve is routing each internal ip number for each server to a different (Public Ip Address).

            At the end of the day managing one firewall is far more efficient than having a firewall for each public ip, NIC cards are not a problem Pfsense Box is sitting with 6

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • GruensFroeschliG
              GruensFroeschli
              last edited by

              As said before: you dont need loadbalancing.
              Loadbalancing is when you have multiple WANs.
              Since you have a single WAN with multiple IPs loadbalancing would not make much sense.

              What would make sense in "some" cases if you have for outbound NAT different IPs.

              ie:
              office 1 IP x
              office 2 IP y
              office 3 IP z
              etc.

              I dont see any benefit with loadbalancing in the sense of that you have randomly a different source IP with outbound traffic.
              (not to speak of that it's currently not possible to have the same gateway multiple times for different WANs)

              We do what we must, because we can.

              Asking questions the smart way: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • K
                Kalios
                last edited by

                ok so i set up VIP with the public Ip's

                attempted to do Advanced outbound Nat with

                Interface- Wan
                Source- Network
                Address- 192.168.0.200 24

                Translation- Desired VIP public Ip

                However on clicking save

                the nat rule defaults instead from 192.168.0.200 to 192.168.0.0,

                i thought this way could allow set ip's?,

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • GruensFroeschliG
                  GruensFroeschli
                  last edited by

                  Please show a screenshot of your VIP-page and the AoN page.

                  We do what we must, because we can.

                  Asking questions the smart way: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • K
                    Kalios
                    last edited by

                    heres the screenys

                    thanks in advance and apologies if i misunderstood your walkthrough

                    nat.JPG
                    nat.JPG_thumb
                    vip.JPG
                    vip.JPG_thumb

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • GruensFroeschliG
                      GruensFroeschli
                      last edited by

                      The rules are on a first match basis.
                      Your second rule never gets applied because if the source is 192.168.0.200/30 it will always be NATed to 202.170.167.90
                      You can also delete either the 3rd or 4th rule.

                      I suppose you have separate IP's for
                      "Web,Ns"
                      and
                      "Mail,Ns2"

                      Set in the source the actual IP of these servers and as subnet /32 (single host).

                      We do what we must, because we can.

                      Asking questions the smart way: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • K
                        Kalios
                        last edited by

                        yeah it was a form of troubleshooting trying to see if it was going out on a different ip :)

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.