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

NAT with Pfsense 2.0Beta4

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.0-RC Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
21 Posts 9 Posters 8.3k 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.
  • F
    f0dei
    last edited by Oct 29, 2010, 5:45 PM Oct 29, 2010, 5:38 PM

    To resume :

    Livebox v2
        |
        |    192.168.1.13              pfSense
        –-------DMZ---------------box  ---------------WAN (192.168.1.13)
                                                                   |---   LAN  (192.168.2.1)/24
                                                                   |---- OPT1 (10.0.0.254)/8

    PORT 30001 and 40000 are forward in my livebox to WAN IP (192.168.1.13)  (but I think it's not necessary because pfsense is on DMZ)

    I want to forward incoming connection from internet on port 30001 and 40000 on WAN IP (pfsense) to my OPT1 adress: 10.0.0.254

    to then port forward to your OPT1 subnet
    I try do do this but it's seems not work (probably I make a mistake)

    Firewall: NAT: Port Forward
    WAN UDP * 30001 WAN address 30001 10.0.0.254 30001

    WAN UDP * 40000 WAN address 40000 10.0.0.254 40000

    Firewall: Rules (WAN)
    UDP * 30001 10.0.0.254 30001 * none   NAT

    UDP * 40000 10.0.0.254 40000 * none   NAT

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • W
      wallabybob
      last edited by Oct 29, 2010, 8:05 PM

      Are firewall rules applied BEFORE port forwarding or AFTER?

      Your configuration appears to assume firewall rules apply AFTER port forwarding. I suggest you check the firewall logs. Maybe firewall rules apply before port forwarding.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • F
        f0dei
        last edited by Oct 29, 2010, 9:01 PM

        It's a linked rules on NAT side, pfSense create WAN rules alone.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          cmb
          last edited by Oct 30, 2010, 7:41 PM

          @wallabybob:

          Are firewall rules applied BEFORE port forwarding or AFTER?

          after.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • F
            f0dei
            last edited by Oct 31, 2010, 7:28 AM

            Any others ideas ?
            I make a tcpdump and the udp packet from Internet seems
            to go correctly to my opt1 interface but a always can't connect.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • L
              Lloyd
              last edited by Oct 31, 2010, 11:25 AM

              I have the same issue. I have NATing an RDP port through (port 3389).

              When I log a 'pass' firewall rule it shows a success however the connection is not made. It is almost like the routing of the reply packets is not working properly.

              My outbound firewall rules are allowing everything currently so I think that the firewall is not the issue.

              • Lloyd
              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • F
                f0dei
                last edited by Nov 1, 2010, 9:07 AM Nov 1, 2010, 8:56 AM

                @Lloyd:

                My outbound firewall rules are allowing everything currently so I think that the firewall is not the issue.

                • Lloyd

                It's very strange, If I put my server on my modem and put the sames rules in their firewall as above, the connection is possible.
                The problem comes for sure from pfSense box, but where that is the question.

                With pfSense box, I make a tcpdump on my wan and server networks cards.

                When I initiat a connection, I see the outgoing packet on UDP 30001  :)
                The reply  from internet comes also on UDP 30001 and goes to my server IP but connection is not possible  ???  ???

                I don't want to switch to monowall or similar firewalls. I trying to resolve this problem since 3 weeks and finally decided
                to ask for helps on this forum.

                I am sure, a lot "supers" users of pfSense could be resolve our problem.
                Regards
                Touf

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • B
                  biatche
                  last edited by Nov 2, 2010, 2:42 AM

                  i can confirm something is not right about multi wan NAT

                  opt1.modem.ip=192.168.202.1 [modem dmz set to 192.168.202.254]
                  opt1.interface.ip=192.168.202.254

                  i setup this NAT rule: OPT1  TCP/UDP  *  *  OPT1 address  26001  192.168.0.11  26001

                  utorrent is on 26001.

                  went to http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/ to do a port test. says port is closed.

                  hooked up a test pc and attached modem directly to pc. loaded up utorrent. did port test. says port is open.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • T
                    tacfit
                    last edited by Nov 3, 2010, 4:52 PM

                    I'm seeing the same thing on releases since late October. NAT is working fine on my default gateway, but not on any of the OPT interfaces. So Multi-WAN NAT seems a bit busted at present.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      sullrich
                      last edited by Nov 3, 2010, 5:14 PM

                      This was fixed yesterday.  Try todays snapshot.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • P
                        Phobia
                        last edited by Nov 4, 2010, 12:45 AM

                        Hey there,

                        I'm running :

                        2.0-BETA4 (i386)
                        built on Wed Nov 3 02:54:06 EDT 2010
                        FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p1

                        … and can confirm that my NAT issues related to this issue appear to have been resolved.

                        Also, the rule I have on each WAN interface allowing SSH access on a non-standard port (not NAT - just a straight forward PASS rule) is also now working.

                        -- Phob

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • B
                          biatche
                          last edited by Nov 4, 2010, 1:39 AM Nov 4, 2010, 1:08 AM

                          2.0-BETA4 (i386)
                          built on Wed Nov 3 02:54:06 EDT 2010
                          FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p1

                          updated to the above. same problem. fine on WAN1, not OPT1 - same nat/rules rules.
                          how can i diagnose this?

                          [2.0-BETA4][root@rixgate.rix]/root(8): tcpdump -i em0 tcp port 26066
                          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
                          listening on em0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
                          09:33:23.778426 IP www.no-ip.com.40436 > 192.168.0.11.26066: Flags [s], seq 1401554251, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 409248447 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
                          09:33:23.778528 IP 192.168.0.11.26066 > www.no-ip.com.40436: Flags [S.], seq 573006331, ack 1401554252, win 8192, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 52097064 ecr 409248447], length 0
                          09:33:24.453092 IP 192.168.0.11.26066 > www.no-ip.com.40318: Flags [R], seq 208309969, win 0, length 0
                          09:33:26.776633 IP www.no-ip.com.40436 > 192.168.0.11.26066: Flags [s], seq 1401554251, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 409251447 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
                          09:33:26.779519 IP 192.168.0.11.26066 > www.no-ip.com.40436: Flags [S.], seq 573006331, ack 1401554252, win 8192, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 52097364 ecr 409248447], length 0
                          09:33:32.780504 IP 192.168.0.11.26066 > www.no-ip.com.40436: Flags [S.], seq 573006331, ack 1401554252, win 8192, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 52097964 ecr 409248447], length 0
                          ^C
                          6 packets captured
                          1634 packets received by filter
                          0 packets dropped by kernel
                          [2.0-BETA4][root@rixgate.rix]/root(9): tcpdump -i nfe1 tcp port 26066    
                          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
                          listening on nfe1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
                          09:33:49.843386 IP www.no-ip.com.40576 > 192.168.202.254.26066: Flags [s], seq 1422382543, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 409274479 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
                          09:33:52.895297 IP www.no-ip.com.40576 > 192.168.202.254.26066: Flags [s], seq 1422382543, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 409277479 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
                          ^C
                          2 packets captured
                          1554 packets received by filter
                          0 packets dropped by kernel
                          [2.0-BETA4][root@rixgate.rix]/root(10): 
                          
                          em0 = lan
                          nfe1 = opt1
                          
                          so...the server received and responded but response never arrived on opt1\. why? what have i missed?
                          
                          [code]
                          Port forward rule:
                          OPT1   	 TCP  	 *  	 *  	 OPT1 address  	 26066  	 192.168.0.11  	 26066
                          
                          Outbound rule:
                          OPT1    	 192.168.0.0/24  	 *  	 *  	 *  	 *  	 *  	YES	LAN to OPT1  
                          
                          FW rule:
                          TCP  	 *  	 *  	 192.168.0.11  	 26066  	 *  	 none
                          [/code][/s][/s][/s][/s]
                          
                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • T
                            tacfit
                            last edited by Nov 4, 2010, 10:03 AM

                            Working for me too. Thanks a lot Scott!

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • K
                              kazibole
                              last edited by Nov 4, 2010, 4:28 PM

                              I'm having an issue with NAT, not sure if it is the same one as the people here. I am running the latest snapshot:

                              2.0-BETA4 (i386)
                              built on Thu Nov 4 01:22:43 EDT 2010
                              FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p1

                              I've got one WAN interface and 3 LAN interfaces. I set up two NAT rules with Pass as the option. One for SIP (UDP 5060) and one for RTP (UDP 10000 - 20000). One issue is that when I do a packet capture on my WAN interface, I can see RTP packets in the range 10000-20000 come in, but when I do another capture on the LAN interface, I don't see them forwarded to my host. I am also having intermittent issues with the SIP port not always registering. Haven't dug too deep on this one, but I suspect that not all packets are getting forwarded to my host.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • B
                                biatche
                                last edited by Nov 4, 2010, 11:28 PM

                                I don't fully get.. does sound similar to mine…

                                (public initiates) [modem] -> [opt1] -> [lan] all ok!
                                [lan] (packet received and responses fine) -> [opt1] (!! never received outgoing packet from lan.) -> [modem]

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • F
                                  f0dei
                                  last edited by Nov 6, 2010, 2:31 AM Nov 5, 2010, 11:18 PM

                                  Hi,

                                  On my side with 2.0-BETA4 (i386) built on Wed Nov 3 02:54:06 EDT 2010 Can connect now but not every time.
                                  Since this update it work better than previous version but not every time  ???

                                  Always OK if I use only modem without pfSense.

                                  This night I have instaled monowall to check if it working or not and make few test, now I can connect to my server.
                                  Something is broken in pfSense. I test the NAT and port forward and it's not working on my side (with v 1.23 and latest v2)

                                  All work great with monowall if I put the same rules

                                  I hope this problem will be resolved in future releases (I like pfSense)

                                  Cheers

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • B
                                    biatche
                                    last edited by Nov 8, 2010, 2:00 AM

                                    Can anybody confirm these issues or if I'm doing something wrong? I really wanna stay on pfsense and not move to anything else….

                                    i need NAT on opt1 :(

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    14 out of 21
                                    • First post
                                      14/21
                                      Last post
                                    Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                                      This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                                      consent.not_received