Lan 1 to Lan 2 Connection Fail
-
You clearly don't understand NAT do you..
How will it know what to do with traffic to say 192.168.10.42 for example – is it will look in its routing table.. See the one I attached! And since it has an interface directly attached to that 192.168.10.0/24 network -- its send the packets out that interface..
Why do you think it would need to NAT that in anyway?? Maybe you need to look up what NAT and or NAPT is and when its needed. You do not need to NAT anything if you can route between the networks.
The reason you NAT to the public internet, is the public internet has no clue how to route rfc1918 address space - since its PRIVATE and designed to be used in your location. Now if you want to have a device talk to say google which is on the public internet, and has a IP address that is routable on the internet - then you need to have an address google can talk to. So your router that has a IP in public space changes your private space to its public ONE so google can talk back to you.
It does that really with NAPT, so that more than one private address can share the 1 public IP you have. This does not have to be done when your router knows how to talk to both networks, since it has an interface in both networks.
With your wan address there on pfsense of 10.. Your doing NAPT twice when you talk to google.. Since google can not talk to a 10.x address
So you have this
pc 192.168.1.a --- 192.168.1.b pfsense 10.x.x.A -- 10.x.x.B router publicIP - internet -- google
So your Natting twice in your setup with that private address on pfsense WAN.. What you normally have is this
192.168.1.14 -- 192.168.1.1 pfsense publicIP - internet - google
but for pfsense to route traffic between 2 network it has interfaces in say
192.168.1.14 -- 192.168.1.1 pfsense 172.16.1.1 -- 172.16.1.3
there is NO reason to NAT or NAPT that.. And it will cause you all kinds of problems doing so that there is NO reason to do.
edit pfsense AUTO nat only nats to the WAN from its lan interfaces - so here is my NAT table.. You can see this by just changing to manual
Notice there are NAT entries for my local networks to my WAN address ONLY, you don't see any NAT entries between the local networks..
-
Obviously we had different' teachers…
from the "Firewall: Nat: Outbound:" page...
If automatic outbound NAT selected, a mapping is automatically created for each interface's subnet
-
Hi John,
This is in answer to your oringinel reply, 2 posts back
And there should be NO gateway on LAN interfaces – or pfsense will think it is a WAN interface..
No gateways are defined for either housenet or labnet, but one is defined for the wan 10.x.x.x network as you would expect.
_if you are trying to NAT there is no reason.. You just need to have simple firewall rules. And boxes in each segment need to alk the pfsense address in that network segment.
You only need to NAT when you go from private address space rfc1918 to public addresses_
Ok, but the housenet interface at 172.16.x.x is in private address space, while the server labnet is public, so to follow your argument, I do need nat to connect the two ?.
Also, what you really seem to be saying here is that the wan interface is a special case in nat terms, where I would have expected nat to be applicable to any interface. Is this in fact the case ?.
I will try a few simple rules to see if that can be made to work. I did a full restore from backup today to get the baseline back, but will try some firewall rules later to see if that can work.
There is normally NO reason to do this unless you can put your ISP device in bridge mode.
I have been using double layer hardware firewalls for years, with pfsense or other as the inner layer. I do have good tech reasons as well, but it’s probably not relevant to this discussion…
Regards,
Chris
-
"Whatever… Obviously we had different' teachers..."
Your TEACH told you that you need to NAT to talk from say 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.2.0/24 ??? No I don't think so -- if they did, they sure and the F should not be teaching anything to do with networking.
If automatic outbound NAT selected, a mapping is automatically created for each interface's subnet
Yeah I agree with you - from the local private lan segments to your WAN segment, be that wan public or private does not matter pfsense will auto nat from lan to wan.. But it DOES not auto nat from lan to lan segments.. Se my attached rules from my automatic NAT. All that nat rules nat from the local or openvpn segments to the WAN IPs.. there are no rules that nat between the local or openvpn segments because there is NO reason too, since pfsense has interfaces in all of those network and can talk to them.. While stuff on the WAN side only know how to talk to pfsense wan IP, not some rfc1918 space on one of its lan segments.
-
"while the server labnet is public"
Why would you be using PUBLIC address space on your local network, behind a NAT router??
"I have been using double layer hardware firewalls for years"
There is HUGE difference between firewalls between public network and having say another firewall between your DMZ and your local network.. But you sure and the hell do not need to double NAT to accomplish more than 1 firewall.. And that is behind the scope of this discussion I would agree yes. But NORMALLY there is NO point to double natting.. But that is outside the current issue - what IP space that is on your wan currently other than the fact that is 10, so private is besides the point.
I don't know why you would be running public space behind a NAT which you are if pfsense wan is 10.. I have to assume your just natting that outbound to pfsense 10 address - so what is the point of the public space?
That being said - you don't have to NAT it to talk to another segment directly connected to pfsense.
-
Hi John,
The 192.x.x.x network is historical, dating back to the earliest networked systems here in the lab. The server hosts file still has most of them listed as well, even if many of the machines were retired years ago. For me, ongoing context is important and that's the way it is, that's why :-).
Is there a solution using the network as it is, or do I have to dig out an old smc barricade mini ethernet router to port forward the subnets and get the job done while I try to work out what's wrong ?…
Regards,
Chris
-
What??
So your saying you have public address space behind nat 10.x – for what possible freaking use??
But again its besides the POINT.. you do NOT need to nat from 2 networks directly connected to pfsense..
Does not matter what I use for the network segments on pfsense they could be public, they could be private does not matter.. between lan I do NOT have to NAT.. I only need to nat to wan if devices connected to wan and beyond don't know how to route to the lan segments of pfsense.. Like the internet not knowing how to talk to 192.168.1.0/24
If the devices connected beyond pfsense wan will know how to talk to 192.16.1.0/24 then I don't have to nat at pfsense.. I can nat when my networks talk to some network, where they wont know how to talk to my private networks -- ie the internet.
Let say you have this - see attached.
Does not matter what the lan networks are, be it they 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x or 42.15.0.0/23
inetnum: 42.8.0.0 - 42.15.255.255
netname: SAMSUNGSDS-KR
descr: SamsungSDS Inc.Since I just pulled that network out of my A_S ;)
Since pfsense has a interface in that network -- lets say 42.15.0.1/23 and has an IP in say another lan segment 192.168.1.1/24 there is NO need to NAT between 192.168.x.0/24 and 42.15.0.0/23
because all the devices talking to pfsense as their gateway -- pfsense knows how to route to those 2 networks.
Now when either of those 2 networks need to go out pfsense wan (that is connected to the internet) then Yes pfsense would need to NAT that.. since IPs beyond pfsense wan IP don't know how to get to 192.168.x.0 network connected to pfsense.. And if you want to use public IP space -- you wouldn't need to nat it -- if that public network is ROUTED to pfsense WAN address.. But with your 10.x.x.x on your wan I find that HIGHLY Unlikely!
This is networking 101 - how is it your not understanding this?? When you state you always use double hardware firewall, ets. etc..
-
Hi John,
Looking at your network, the reason why you don't need nat may be that all the subnets are on the same private block and pfsense may recognise that internally. It's difficult to say if this is the case without wading through the sources, since there appears to be no docs that describe pfsense internals, or perhaps there are ?.
Anyway, all my subnets are not on the same private block and need to get this working. A nat rule partially works, but doesn't return packets, so it looks like the smc box bridging / port forwarding the subnets while I try to figure out why nat is broken may be the best short term solution…
Regards,
Chris
-
pfsense knows how to route to those 2 networks.
This is what Im (obviously incorrectly) heaping into the NAT arena…
Seems to me I had to build NAT rules (since I was using manual NAT at the time) when I added my second LAN subnet a year ago.
-
"Anyway, all my subnets are not on the same private block and need to get this working. "
Dude what part are you NOT understanding about 2 lan networks directly connect to pfsense NOT needing nat.
If these 2 networks are directly connect to pfsense - then NO NAT IS NEEDED and is only going to cause you problems - because now if your trying to nat between LAN networks you going to have to do that manual, and your also going to have to create port forwards for the traffic you want to create to IPs behind the NAT, etc..
Again - I am going to say this yet again.. THERE is NO NAT between LAN network segments directly connected to a pfsense..
Do I really need to change my DMZ segment to some other network to show you that?? Really??
-
ok LOOK – changed my DMZ network to 172.15.0.0/24 -- gave pfsense 172.15.0.1/24 address.. See attached. Did not change my dmz rules.. It can talk to anything it wants other than my local networks.. But my local networks can create connections to it..
That is a PUBLIC network space.. Not rfc1918.. But notice my pfsense has route to it.. And I can ping a host I brought up on 172.15.0.42/24 with gateway pointing to pfsense 172.15.0.1 address from my 192.168.1.0/24 network
That took me all of what 2 minutes to setup??
There is NO freaking NATS needed between 2 locally connected networks to pfsense.. I assure you there are NO nats between those networks!!
What traffic I allow between 192.168 lan and 172.15 dmz would be my firewall rules ONLY - there are NO port forwards required for these 2 local network to talk to each other - no matter what IP space I use on them.
-
Well- Thanks John! I learned something new today.
http://www.zytrax.com/tech/protocols/ip-classes.html#nat
A well written NAT system also acts as a 'poor mans' firewall since it has the additional advantage that Internal IP addresses are not visible from outside the organisation
Obviously this isn't something that LAN to LAN would want or need.
Also- verified here as well and turned off all NAT and was still able to move around throughout the various LANS here. Including one of the VPNs to my office network.
-
:-[
May i just one….... "what if ?"
What if of the "private" networks isn't using the pfSense as its GW ?
Let's say that the 172.15.0.42 host is using as GW an IP other than your pfSense 172.15.0.1.... It would you be able to ping it ?
:-[
-
"Let's say that the 172.15.0.42 host is using as GW an IP other than your pfSense 172.15.0.1."
When I have asked already multiple times in this thread..
Or maybe has wrong gatewaysetup /mask and thinks to talk to your first segment it needs to send traffic to some other IP(gateway).
If you show your box answering, but you don't see it on pfsense..
19:00:27.909689 IP 172.16.100.205.53942 > firelight.telnet: tcp 0
19:00:27.909804 IP firelight.telnet > 172.16.100.205.53942: tcp 0Then your box is setup wrong for its gateway or its network mask and thinks that IP address is local to its network..
But WHY would my 172.15.0.42 NOT use pfsense as its default gateway?? But yeah if that was the case, then sure you "could" nat so that my 172.5.0.42 saw the traffic as coming from its local network, and would not talk to a gateway to talk to it..
If that is the case why has the OP not stated this - I have brought up that scenario a couple times already.. Real early in the thread even when he stated pfsense was not seeing a response.
Its really simple when you need nat - you need nat when the dest would not know how to talk to the source IP, so you need to change the source IP to a IP that the dest can talk too.. Or you need to create routes so it does know..
if you had like what your saying.
192.168.1.0/24 pfsense 172.15.0.1 –- 172.15.0.42 -- 172.15.0.254 router otherIP -- other networks.
Where .254 was say the default gateway for .42 you have 2 options.. You could nat traffic coming from 192.168.1.0/24 so it LOOKs like its really from 172.15.0.1 -- so .42 thinks its just local. Not my first choice since be it you use NAT or NAPT you made it more complicated than simple route and firewall rules (if even firewall between and not just router)
OR!! Simple option –> You put a route on .42 that says hey when you want to talk 192.168.1.0/24 use 172.15.0.1 as your gateway to that network and don't send it out your "default" gateway..
This is like the pfsense routing table.. Since pfsense has routes to the networks involved, it doesn't send the traffic out its "default" gateway.. It sends the traffic out the interface connected to that network.
-
Hi John,
I’ve tried to explain what I’m trying to do, a simple port forward between internal lan segments and have given chapter and verse on the network topology and loads of debug info. All you seem to do is find fault and criticize via various side issues, without once answering any of the questions directly.
Don’t be offended, but it sounds like angry father syndrome, rather than understanding mentor. Perhaps clam down a bit and actually try to answer the questions ?…
Regards,
Chris
-
This really should be simple, and just work by default as long as there are firewall rules that allow the traffic.
Can we start again and get exactly what is where:
a) Each interface name and its IP address on pfSense
b) What rules are on each interface
c) What the clients have for their default gateway (hopefully the respective pfSense interface IP address)
d) Details of any other router/gateway device in the network -
Dude I have gone over this and over this - what part about NOT needing nat do you not understand??
You have not answered anything that has been asked..
For starters does 172.x network use pfsense as its default gateway or point to something else?
If your going to insist on NAT, your going to have to create it manually because pfsense does not NAT between LAN segments automatically.
Do your pfsense LAN interfaces have gateways on them - see my example where there is NO gateway listed on LAN interfaces.
Where are you rules - Post them! And the networking setup from your devices. Where is your pfsense routing table?
As I showed you it takes literately only a couple of minutes to route traffic on pfsense between lan segment - there is NO need to NAT.
As stated with your tcpdump if your saying your seeing pfsense send the packets, and seeing your box answer those packets but not being seen on pfsense.. Then you have something wrong with your client configuration. Be it it thinks that source IP is local, be it has another route to that network - ie a different default gateway? Or something between pfsense and this client not allowing the traffic (firewall?)
Without some details NOBODY can help you.
-
Hi,
Thanks for the replies and hope you won’t mind if I answer both in the same post..
Phil:
This really should be simple, and just work by default as long as there are firewall rules that allow the traffic.
Can we start again and get exactly what is where:a) Each interface name and its IP address on pfSense
There are 3 hardware interfaces.
wan: 10.0.x.x External, internet Default gateway -> upstream
homenet; 172.16.x.x Home, internal No gateway defined
labnet: 192.9.x.x Lab, internal. No gateway definedb) What rules are on each interface
wan: None, other than one to block bogon networks
homenet: One, to allow home net to anything
labnet: One, as per homenet.There’s also the admin anti lockout rule on labnet, on a non standard https port. Admin account name is different as well, but doubt if that should affect anything.
This is all working fine for outgoing access via either interface to the web, but if I try to telnet a homenet node to the labnet node, I get “no route to host” which is expected since there’s no rule or port forward defined to allow it.
c) What the clients have for their default gateway (hopefully the respective pfSense interface IP addresses)
Correct for both
d) Details of any other router/gateway device in the network
1 upstream from wan interface, none on homenet or labnet
As I understand it, pfsense blocks everything by default, so you need rules even for outgoing access. For that reason, it seems logical that if I want to access a host on labnet from a homenet host, I need a port forward or some sort of rule to allow it. Port forward on another pfsense box works fine incoming from the wan to a lan port, but it doesn’t seem to work from one internal port, to another on this box, so perhaps all ports are not created equal / have the same capabilities ?.
Ok, so I define a port forward rule for telnet as follows:
Src Src Dest Dest Nat Nat
Addr Ports Addr Ports Addr Ports172.16.x.x * housenet net 23 192.9.x.x 23
Sorry no screen shot, but haven’t got round to that yet..
Interface is housenet, protocol = tcp/udp, nat reflection = default and nat creates associated rule. Except for the interfaces, this is the same setup as that for the other pfsense box on the webserver, which works fine.
Using this rule, the telnet request is seen on homenet with wireshark, can be seen outgoing on the pfsense local console and the server on labnet replies, but the reply is lost on it’s way back into pfsense labnet interface. All the tcpdump trace info is in a previous post above, fyi.
Do you need anything else ?.
John,
Dude: … what part about NOT needing nat do you not understand ??
Well, all of it, unless you can tell me how it can be done without a port forward / nat, or rules of some sort :-). (Note the smiley :-)
All the debug info is in the previous posts, other than the rules, but if there’s anything I’ve missed this time, please let me know…
Regards,
Chris
-
Hi,
A bit more info:
Have also tried various variations on the above rule and also various switches in system -> advanced -> firewall-NAT, but none of it seems to work.
Is there any way to force wysiwig from post editor -> preview -> post. Formatting lost :-)…
Regards,
Chris
-
This is all working fine for outgoing access via either interface to the web, but if I try to telnet a homenet node to the labnet node, I get “no route to host” which is expected since there’s no rule or port forward defined to allow it.
Actually, it is expected to have a route and thus deliver your packet/s. pfSense (and every router I have ever seen) will route between local subnets by default.
homenet: One, to allow home net to anything
That rule should allow home to labnet, as well as homenet to google, homenet to facebook, homenet to anything.
There REALLY is no need to use NAT for this. There MUST be some other tricky thing that you have accidentally set up that is causing this not to work, or the target system in labnet does not respond to telnet from another subnet or…
Look in the Firewall log and make sure packets are not being blocked there. Then do some packet capture on homenet to verify the telnet initiation packet/s arrive, then on labnet to verify they leave labnet, then look for the response packet from labnet client on labnet and then homenet. Wherever the packet/s stop being seen is where to look next.
