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

    OpenVPN vs. Multi-Wan

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.1 Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
    12 Posts 5 Posters 5.0k 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.
    • W
      wallabybob
      last edited by

      @zandr:

      If I set OpenVPN's interface to 'any', I get "An IPv4 protocol was selected, but the selected interface has no IPv4 address."

      What am I missing here?

      PPP interfaces don't have a "permanent IP" address; they don't have an IP address if PPP is not "up".

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

        Try binding OpenVPN daemon to a local interface and port-forwarding the others (WAN, OPTx etc)

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • Z
          zandr
          last edited by

          @wallabybob:

          @zandr:

          If I set OpenVPN's interface to 'any', I get "An IPv4 protocol was selected, but the selected interface has no IPv4 address."

          What am I missing here?

          PPP interfaces don't have a "permanent IP" address; they don't have an IP address if PPP is not "up".

          Same could be said of DHCP, thus my confusion. I'll try dhatz's suggestion of binding to LAN and port forwarding.

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

            Apparently there are some issues, check:

            http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,51789.0/all.html
            http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi-WAN_OpenVPN

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Z
              zandr
              last edited by

              @dhatz:

              http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi-WAN_OpenVPN

              Oh, the 'local' config might address the issue, now that I look at it.

              I'm remote from the pfsense box, so I don't really want to saw off the limb I'm sitting on. I'll try this from home tonight.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • Z
                zandr
                last edited by

                @zandr:

                @dhatz:

                http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi-WAN_OpenVPN

                Oh, the 'local' config might address the issue, now that I look at it.

                This howto (adding the local config) doesn't actually work, it still complains about the port being in use.

                I'm running with the second interface on 1195/udp for the moment, I'll try the port forward when I have a little more time.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • jimpJ
                  jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                  last edited by

                  That doc is old. Really old. The "local" suggestion was for 1.2.x only.

                  Best way to do what you're after is just to bind to the LAN interface and port forward from each WAN there.

                  Though selecting "any" can work in certain circumstances, that was broken in the GUI. Should be fixed after my last commit. Seems the IPv4/IPv6 detection code mussed that up a bit.

                  https://github.com/bsdperimeter/pfsense/commit/489f484cbda027e0bb677218ff2167ecf125f70e

                  One of these days I should also add "localhost" as an interface option too…

                  Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                  Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                  Do not Chat/PM for help!

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

                    @jimp:

                    Best way to do what you're after is just to bind to the LAN interface and port forward from each WAN there.

                    Can you think of any reason why this method would work for TCP but not for UDP ? (as reported in e.g. http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,51789.0/all.html)

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • jimpJ
                      jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                      last edited by

                      Binding to "any" may not work because of the system's routing table - UDP would flow back via the IP on the default gateway WAN always, TCP would go back the way the connection was initiated.

                      Binding to LAN and using port forwards should work for TCP or UDP, as long as the NAT rules and firewall rules refer to the proper protocol. (Or unless one of the multiple ISPs filters the inbound traffic…)

                      Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                      Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                      Do not Chat/PM for help!

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Z
                        zandr
                        last edited by

                        @jimp:

                        Best way to do what you're after is just to bind to the LAN interface and port forward from each WAN there.

                        OK, I'm a few hours from leaving town again, but I'll set this up on my return. Thanks for the help.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • C
                          ccesario
                          last edited by

                          @jimp:

                          Best way to do what you're after is just to bind to the LAN interface and port forward from each WAN there.

                          Hi, ony to knowledge.

                          I have this scenario ruunning in UDP port, and this work perfect!!!

                          :)

                          Carlos

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