Port Forwarding with multiple WANs
-
I've been thinking about this, too (after getting a 2nd Internet connection). I assumed I'd have to have two internal IP addresses for each service: 1 for WAN1 and one for WAN2. Then 1:1NAT wouldn't get confused about where to deliver the packet (if that's what's happening). Have you thought about that? If so, have you tried it?
-
Have you resolved this? I have pretty much same exact issue.
-
@crambo
I never worked on this anymore because our main Internet service seems to be pretty reliable and our other Internet service is used mainly for downloads. I haven't changed my theory, though. I use 1-to-1 NAT for my internal servers, so I need an external address for, say, WWW on each connection. Since those can't both point to the same internal IP address (or it wouldn't be 1-to-1), I would have my server serve the site on two addresses internally and assign one to ISP A and the other to ISP B via 1-to-1 NAT. -
Bummer. Thanks for replying. My situ is a little different, but had you figured out the SYN_RECVD issue, I'd likely be on a right track.
Thanks, tho!
-
Having such NAT on each WAN works fine, provided your firewall rules and WAN config are proper.
#1 - Make sure you do NOT use an interface group for WAN firewall rules - Rules on interface groups won't get the reply-to tag to ensure the return traffic exits the proper WAN. Make the rules on the actual WAN/WAN2 tab.
#2- Make sure the firewall rule(s) do not have the box checked to disable reply-to.
#3- Make sure the master reply-to disable switch is not checked, under System > Advanced, on the Firewall/NAT tab.
#4- Make sure your WAN and WAN2 interfaces have a gateway selected on Interfaces > WAN/WAN2, not having a gateway selected on the Interface page will also make the system omit reply-to on the rules.
-
#4 was my issue. Thanks for the clarification!
-
I have this same problem except my second WAN interface is a double NAT. I don't understand whether I should disable reply-to in this case. The port forwards have been replicated on the NAT modem to forward to the second WAN interface and the gateway for the second WAN interface is set to the modem. The port forward only works if I change the default gateway on pfSense to the second gateway. It looks like the reply-to isn't working correctly on a double NAT.
-
reply-do doesn't care about double NAT or public/private IPs.
The four points I posted above are all that really matter.
It works fine everywhere I use it, and I set it up multiple times per week for customers and never have a problem so long as the configuration is set as I stated.
-
I got it working. My second double NAT gateway is actually a modem on LAN2. I didn't realise my "* to *" on LAN2 through WAN gateway was preventing the associated port forward rules from executing at all. I changed it to "LAN2 subnet to *".
-
Hi Jimp
Having such NAT on each WAN works fine, provided your firewall rules and WAN config are proper.
#1 - Make sure you do NOT use an interface group for WAN firewall rules - Rules on interface groups won't get the reply-to tag to ensure the return traffic exits the proper WAN. Make the rules on the actual WAN/WAN2 tab.
#2- Make sure the firewall rule(s) do not have the box checked to disable reply-to.
#3- Make sure the master reply-to disable switch is not checked, under System > Advanced, on the Firewall/NAT tab.
#4- Make sure your WAN and WAN2 interfaces have a gateway selected on Interfaces > WAN/WAN2, not having a gateway selected on the Interface page will also make the system omit reply-to on the rules.
Great post, thank you for this. It provided me with the needed pointer to make this work for us.
The only thing I had to do different to make this work, is not select a gateway for the individual rules. With a gateway for the individual rules, it created route-to rules (pfctl -sr), without it creates reply-to rules. We are running 2.1-BETA1 snapshot from 1 April.
I do have a gateway selected on the interfaces pages.
Thanks again
McGlenn
