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

    Captive Portal & WAN interface

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Captive Portal
    15 Posts 7 Posters 14.0k 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.
    • X
      XIII
      last edited by

      What do you want to do?

      -Chris Stutzman
      Sys0:2.0.1: AMD Sempron 140 @2.7 1024M RAM 100GHD
      Sys1:2.0.1: Intel P4 @2.66 1024M RAM 40GHD
      freedns.afraid.org - Free DNS dynamic DNS subdomain and domain hosting.
      Check out the pfSense Wiki

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • J
        jmgc
        last edited by

        Hi again,

        It looks I was not clear enough and I didn't explained the whole story. I'm sorry about that.

        I configured NAT on WAN and opened port 80. Next, on Port Forward I'm sending the packets to my apache publisher on the subnet. So I want everyone accessing port 80 to go through the Captive Portal. I hope that can be done without too much hassle. The Captive Portal service is working quite well on the LAN interface.

        Thanks in advance for your help.

        Joe

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • E
          eri--
          last edited by

          That is a reverse Captive Portal which is presently not supported.
          If you need the feature you can contat support.pfsense.com

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • J
            jmgc
            last edited by

            Thank you for this last answer. That ratifies what I perhaps had in mind. I was not sure at all and I wanted to be pretty sure about it.

            Thank you again. You guys are awesome.

            Joe

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • R
              Ravine
              last edited by

              Hello!

              I have a similar (?) problem.
              We are on a public network (subnetted B class IP, part of a university). We have lots of wifi APs all around, NOT in the same subnet (routers between).
              Currently, all AP's have dd-wrt in them, with chillispot captive portal to auth the users.

              Is there a way to 'unite' these wifi-APs, to make them connect through a pfsense box? AND use the captive portal in it?

              My idea was to make a PPTP server on the pfsense, configure the APs to  connect as PPTP clients, and captive the PPTP interface. But it looks like not that easy.
              (The pfsense box only has a WAN interface.)

              any idea?
              thx

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • W
                wallabybob
                last edited by

                You could add NICs to your pfSense box: either physical NICs or VLAN interfaces with a VLAN capable switch acting as a "port multiplier" then connect the APs to the additional interface(s) and enable captive portal on the additional interface(s). If you do a search on the forums for VLAN port multiplier you will find a number of posts on the subject of using VLANs to get additional interfaces on a pfSense box..

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • R
                  Ravine
                  last edited by

                  Hmm. I can add a physical NIC to the PFS box, but i cannot "connect the APs to the additional interface", because all the APs are on the WAN side, with public IP's, lots of them miles away. That's why i thinking about a VPN, but how can i assign a PPTP connection to a physical interface?
                  In the "Interfaces" menu, i can add the pptpdX interfaces, but CP doesn't work. Should i bridge them to physical nic or something? I'm a bit noob for this…

                  thx

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • D
                    dhatz
                    last edited by

                    @Ravine:

                    i cannot "connect the APs to the additional interface", because all the APs are on the WAN side, with public IP's, lots of them miles away.

                    If I understand your setup correctly, i.e. that your APs are dispersed across several different locations miles apart and presumably connected via their own links to the Internet, it doesn't seem a good idea to tunnel their traffic back to your location via a VPN, to go in and back out of your pfSense box, just in order to use pfSense's CP.

                    If all you need is to centrally authenticate your AP users, since you already run the chillispot CP on your ddwrt APs, a better idea would be to use a central RADIUS server.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • R
                      Ravine
                      last edited by

                      @dhatz:

                      @Ravine:

                      i cannot "connect the APs to the additional interface", because all the APs are on the WAN side, with public IP's, lots of them miles away.

                      If I understand your setup correctly, i.e. that your APs are dispersed across several different locations miles apart and presumably connected via their own links to the Internet, it doesn't seem a good idea to tunnel their traffic back to your location via a VPN, to go in and back out of your pfSense box, just in order to use pfSense's CP.

                      If all you need is to centrally authenticate your AP users, since you already run the chillispot CP on your ddwrt APs, a better idea would be to use a central RADIUS server.

                      Ok, i see. Actually, i use RADIUS centrally. What i wanted is to make the AP's DDwrt-free (i have more problems with new AP's), and a central firewall/CP would be nice. But i think you're right, tunneling back isn't a good idea. WPA-Enterprise isn't good enough from the point of casual users.

                      thx

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M
                        Metu69salemi
                        last edited by

                        it might work if your wan links between campuses is somewhere 500mbps+
                        So amount of the other trafic don't make any exception to authentication trafic

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • R
                          Ravine
                          last edited by

                          @Metu69salemi:

                          it might work if your wan links between campuses is somewhere 500mbps+
                          So amount of the other trafic don't make any exception to authentication trafic

                          The WAN links are good enough, the backbone is gigabit afaik. And, eventually, if the central building goes down, the RADIUS server goes down, so every building loses wifi auth. But that's a rare case. But i still don't know how CP the end-users, who are transparently connect to the pfsense box through a PPTP connection of the wifi routers. Is it possible actually?

                          thx

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • W
                            wallabybob
                            last edited by

                            I don't know if GRE tunnels are supported on your APs; they are on pfSense. See pfSense man page on gre - http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=gre&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+8.2-RELEASE&arch=default&format=html
                            GRE tunnels apparently don't use encryption so should be a lighter load on AP CPU and pfSense server CPU than a VPN.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • R
                              Ravine
                              last edited by

                              @wallabybob:

                              I don't know if GRE tunnels are supported on your APs; they are on pfSense. See pfSense man page on gre - http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=gre&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+8.2-RELEASE&arch=default&format=html
                              GRE tunnels apparently don't use encryption so should be a lighter load on AP CPU and pfSense server CPU than a VPN.

                              Well..dd-wrt doesn't support it on the webgui, however it's linux, so it's probably possible. But looks like the newer firmwares doing it differently (2.4 vs 2.6 kernel). I don't feel the power in me to do it by hand… i'm sure it gets worse eventually :)

                              thx

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