Difference between Interface subnet and 192.168.2.0/24
-
OK - So, your pfsense is a client to a vpn service and then your pfsense is also running an openvpn server to which your laptop/computer is a client while inside your own LAN? Do I have this wrong?
laptop/computer is a client while I'm out (for eg. at a Strabucks coffee).
-
OK - I see.
When you VPN into your pfsense from your laptop when you are out does all that traffic then go out over the VPN pfsense is client too?
-
OK - I see.
When you VPN into your pfsense from your laptop when you are out does all that traffic then go out over the VPN pfsense is client too?
Yes.
-
haha - I see where this is going… Good one.
I take it AirVPN doesn't have a bandwidth usage cap?
-
Oh, yes, I understand that. But my question was: why does OPT subnet and 192.168.2.0/24 was not the same?
Please, type ifconfig to console. For both modes. Compare the OPT3/ovpns? output.
with net30
ovpns2: flags=8051 <up,pointopoint,running,multicast>metric 0 mtu 1500
options=80000 <linkstate>inet6 fe80::a00:27ff:fe7f:875d%ovpns2 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x8
inet 192.168.2.1 –> 192.168.2.1 netmask 0xffffff00without inet30
ovpns2: flags=8051 <up,pointopoint,running,multicast>metric 0 mtu 1500
options=80000 <linkstate>inet6 fe80::a00:27ff:fe7f:875d%ovpns2 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x8
inet 192.168.2.1 --> 192.168.2.2 netmask 0xffffffff
nd6 options=3 <performnud,accept_rtadv>Opened by PID 15822</performnud,accept_rtadv></linkstate></up,pointopoint,running,multicast></linkstate></up,pointopoint,running,multicast> -
haha - I see where this is going… Good one.
I take it AirVPN doesn't have a bandwidth usage cap?
no limitations as I know
-
Yeah. So, see:
netmask 0xffffffff = /32 (really just the OVPN IP itself, does not include any client, 192.168.2.6 certainly out)
netmask 0xffffff00 = /24 (the configured subnet) -
Yeah. So, see:
netmask 0xffffffff = /32 (really just the OVPN IP itself, does not include any client, 192.168.2.6 certainly out)
netmask 0xffffff00 = /24 (the configured subnet)why inet 192.168.2.1 –> 192.168.2.1
-
why inet 192.168.2.1 –> 192.168.2.1
What's your problem with that, again? The question has been answered already. The tunnel endpoints are the same there.
-
So, anyway - I've not been running pfsense this way before. I've only done this with a DD-WRT as client to Pfsense/Openvpn and then DD-WRT has its clients… Similar.
No one has said yet, but I'm guessing the OPT3 got created auto-magically when you created the OpenVPN client in pfsense? If so, I'm clear now.
How well is this working for you?
-
So, anyway - I've not been running pfsense this way before. I've only done this with a DD-WRT as client to Pfsense/Openvpn and then DD-WRT has its clients… Similar.
No one has said yet, but I'm guessing the OPT3 got created auto-magically when you created the OpenVPN client in pfsense? If so, I'm clear now.
How well is this working for you?
Absolutely not, I created the OPT3 to add a roadwarrior after all VPN testing from LAN –> to AirVPN were successful.
-
Yeah - See thats the part I don't understand why you need it. But if its working for you, I guess I don't need to understand necessarily.
I have road warriors and I didn't have to create an interface for them - Thats why I'm confused. -
Yeah - See thats the part I don't understand why you need it. But if its working for you, I guess I don't need to understand necessarily.
I need it because the VPN provider is one (= 1 account), but I have to protect at the same time my internal LAN clients AND roadwarrior client(s) under the same umbrella (LAN = home office; roadwarrior = mobile office).
-
Thank you doktornotor, now I understand (yeah!) 8)
-
OK - If it works it works.
-
OK - If it works it works.
If you're interested, now I'm going to add a Wi-Fi interface! ;D ;D ;D with OpenVPN peers, of course!
-
Its not the adding of physical interfaces that confuses me.
Or the fact that you can have VPN clients to a pfsense that is running as a client to a VPN its self.
Or that you can add a wireless interface + its clients to pfsense which is client to a VPN.
The thing that confuses me is that I've always been able to firewall my pfsense road warriors just fine from the Openvpn firewall tab without the addition of an interface for their subnet.
So, what I'm wondering is was that interface necessary at all?
I'm probably just missing something. Its OK.
-
Its not the adding of physical interfaces that confuses me.
The thing that confuses me is that I've always been able to firewall my pfsense road warriors just fine from the Openvpn firewall tab without the addition of an interface for their subnet.
So, what I'm wondering is was that interface necessary at all?
You have to assign an interface if you want to filter pfsense-as-client and pfsense-as-server VPN traffic separately. And for NATting too. search the forum for instructions on how to set pfsense as an Open VPN client to a VPN provider :)
-
If you run pfSense as server and pfSense as client you don't necessarily need to assign the interfaces.
The openVPN tab is basically a predefined interface group containing all openVPN interfaces even if they are not assigned.
With a few openVPN instances the ruleset becomes one big mess pretty fast. Good luck debugging.
Assigning the openVPN interface simply allows you to seperate the rules logically for different virtual interfaces.If you want to do NAT magic (outbound NAT) or run certain services on a VPN interface (igmp proxy) you need to assign them.
Otherwise you don't have the option in the various places to select the interface in the dropdown. -
Yeah - I have probably just never had a use scenario that required me to create an interface separately from the openvpn default interface.
