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

    Problem with NAT. Can't forward port from WAN to LAN.

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    29 Posts 8 Posters 12.5k 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.
    • E Offline
      edmund
      last edited by

      I'm having a similar problem, I have a web server on the LAN (192.168.0.8 ) and it's reachable from anywhere on the LAN but the NAT rule doesn't appear to allow the outside world to see it on 68.224.223.183.  I've enabled logging on the rule that the NAT redirect created but it never seems to catch anything coming in through the WAN.

      I have a rule on the LAN side to push everything from 192.168.0.8 to the same WAN gateway with the redirect, and that logs regular DNS traffic from 192.168.0.8 to the world through the correct gateway so I know that the LAN side logging works and traffic is going out of the same net that it should be coming in through.

      I'm wondering if the NAT redirect somehow bypasses the logging switch but that seem unlikely.

      I have to be missing something - I've been through all the Port Forward Troubleshooting docs and everything appears obvious and OK, I'll read though the 2.2 manual tonight for more clues.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DerelictD Offline
        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
        last edited by

        @edmund:

        I'm having a similar problem, I have a web server on the LAN (192.168.0.8 ) and it's reachable from anywhere on the LAN but the NAT rule doesn't appear to allow the outside world to see it on 68.224.223.183.  I've enabled logging on the rule that the NAT redirect created but it never seems to catch anything coming in through the WAN.

        Post up your NAT rule and WAN firewall rules

        Should be:

        If WAN
        Proto TCP
        Src Addr *
        Src Port *
        Dst Addr: WAN address (Assuming this is the IP specified below, else the proper VIP)
        Dst Port: 80
        NAT IP: 192.168.0.8
        NAT Port: 80

        The corresponding firewall rule on WAN should pass tcp port 80 source any dest 192.168.0.8

        I have a rule on the LAN side to push everything from 192.168.0.8 to the same WAN gateway with the redirect, and that logs regular DNS traffic from 192.168.0.8 to the world through the correct gateway so I know that the LAN side logging works and traffic is going out of the same net that it should be coming in through.

        That will only matter for connections ORIGINATING FROM 192.168.0.8.  It has nothing to do with return traffic from the web server for states that were created when the connections came from outside WAN.

        If you put that in place only to try to fix this port forward, I'd get rid of it.

        I'm wondering if the NAT redirect somehow bypasses the logging switch but that seem unlikely.

        I have to be missing something - I've been through all the Port Forward Troubleshooting docs and everything appears obvious and OK, I'll read though the 2.2 manual tonight for more clues.

        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • E Offline
          edmund
          last edited by

          Thanks - I have fixed it after reading the 2.2 manual (worth every penny of the gold subscription by the way) - the problem appears to be solved by creating a Virtual IP assigned to the address that I wanted to NAT into the LAN.  Deleting and then recreating the NAT rule gave me the option of using the VIP address as the WAN destination … and voila!  It works!

          Network wrangling is not my day job so my guess at what was happening may not be correct but I'll post what I think was happening...

          The firewall was on 68.224.223.179 but I was trying to redirect 68.224.223.183 - the clue was that the firewall log never showed anything coming in - reading the manual I started to see that the pfSense address is just that, a single IP address and the packets that I wanted to NAT were never arriving on that address.  So they never got logged of course.

          My thinking originally was thrown off because I have OPT1 bridged with the pfSense WAN address and a server on OPT1 works fine - but then it's bridged on the WAN side so it would wouldn't it?

          Thanks for taking the time to look at the problem - I appreciate all the help that I've received here.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T Offline
            tarmenel
            last edited by

            Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
            You just solved my issue with the Virtual IP.
            I've spent weeks trying to get this working.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • W Offline
              wwatanabe
              last edited by

              Sorry if I can't post my question here, but I have a similar problem. I'm using PFSense 2.1.5 and it working in all other sites with NAT, MultiWan, etc. But now we have a customer where it's not working.

              "Yes, I had RTFM Port Forward Troubleshooting, but it is not helped.Tried google forum, wiki, etc., and my brain is overheated, but i cant find solution :c"

              Cenario:

              MODEM in Bridge Mode -> (WAN: VALID IP) PFSENSE (LAN: 192.168.10.252) -> LAN -> HOST (IP: 192.168.10.251)

              NAT
              Interface: WAN
              Protocol: TCP/UDP
              DST: WAN_Address
              DST Port: 43390
              Redirect: 192.168.10.251
              Redirect Port: 3389
              Create new associated filter rule

              WAN
              Pass
              Interface: WAN
              TCP/UDP
              From: Any
              DST: 192.168.10.251
              DST Port: 3389

              LAN
              Allow everything from LAN NET to ANY.

              ===================

              I tried with other NAT but no one works. VPN also don't work in this installation. I've tried with 2 different ISPs, one with Dynamic Address and other with fixed IP. All of them in bridge and not blocking services. I've tried with other Router and it works.

              ===================

              I run a TCPDUMP in on of our PFsense where NAT is working and I have:

              http://pastebin.com/pJCBgX6x

              There are a return from PFSense IP when communication.

              On this PFSense where NAT doesn't work the TCPDUMP shows:

              tcpdump -ni igb0 | grep 43390
              tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
              listening on igb0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
              22:55:12.593966 IP 177.143.120.78.35814 > 200.200.200.200.43390: Flags [ S ], seq 1345026210, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 2,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
              22:55:15.591285 IP 177.143.120.78.35814 > 200.200.200.200.43390: Flags [ S ], seq 1345026210, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 2,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
              22:55:21.585046 IP 177.143.120.78.35814 > 200.200.200.200.43390: Flags [ S ], seq 1345026210, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0

              There are no return from host.

              =================================

              I've tried everything. Inicially I'm using LoadBalance and two links, now I disabled the second link, delete LoadBalance and the problem persist.

              Any help ?

              ========================

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DerelictD Offline
                Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                last edited by

                Check the default gateway on 192.168.10.251
                Check the software firewall on 192.168.10.251

                Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • W Offline
                  wwatanabe
                  last edited by

                  Thanks for fast reply.

                  I already did it. The gateway is pointing to 192.168.10.252 wich is the LAN IP of PFSense
                  Firewall Disabled.

                  The RDP access work fine from LAN.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • DerelictD Offline
                    Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                    last edited by

                    Working from LAN means nothing.  Check the firewall on the host to be sure it allows connections from OTHER THAN LAN.

                    Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                    A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                    DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                    Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • W Offline
                      wwatanabe
                      last edited by

                      The Firewall on Host is disabled.

                      The Antivirus is disabled.

                      I also tried with other Windows Server on the network, same problem.

                      And tried with other service (DVR) in other host, same problem.

                      Thanks for helping !
                      Sorry for my poor english.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • DerelictD Offline
                        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                        last edited by

                        Well, there's not much else to a port forward, so it has to be something.  Does tcpdump on LAN show the SYNs going from 177.143.120.78 to 192.168.10.251:3389?  What states are created? (Diagnostics > States).

                        Load sharing…  Are you sure you have the port forward on the interface that has the IP specified?  Are the clients connecting to the right interface?

                        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • W Offline
                          wwatanabe
                          last edited by

                          I'm new with PFSense and TCPDump, sorry if it's not what you ask.

                          I Run TCPDump and try to connect with RDP.

                          ==================
                          em1 -> LAN

                          [2.1.5-RELEASE][root@host]/root(14): tcpdump -ni em1 | grep 192.168.10.251.3389
                          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
                          listening on em1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
                          23:36:44.807796 IP 177.143.120.78.45783 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [ S ], seq 3165976847, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 2,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
                          23:36:44.807877 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.45783: Flags [S.], seq 3448840707, ack 3165976848, win 16384, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
                          23:36:44.832998 IP 177.143.120.78.45783 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [.], ack 1, win 4380, length 0
                          23:36:44.833113 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.45783: Flags [R], seq 3448840708, win 0, length 0
                          23:36:44.839389 IP 177.143.120.78.45783 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [P.], ack 1, win 4380, length 19
                          23:36:44.839444 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.45783: Flags [R], seq 3448840708, win 0, length 0

                          ======================

                          [2.1.5-RELEASE][root@macfw001.macco.local]/root(12): tcpdump -ni em1 | grep 177.143.120.78
                          tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
                          listening on em1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
                          23:35:59.469877 IP 177.143.120.78.46898 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [ S ], seq 1760568614, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 2,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
                          23:35:59.469985 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.46898: Flags [S.], seq 408005352, ack 1760568615, win 16384, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
                          23:35:59.492434 IP 177.143.120.78.46898 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [.], ack 1, win 4380, length 0
                          23:35:59.492551 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.46898: Flags [R], seq 408005353, win 0, length 0
                          23:35:59.505291 IP 177.143.120.78.46898 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [P.], ack 1, win 4380, length 19
                          23:35:59.505347 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.46898: Flags [R], seq 408005353, win 0, length 0
                          23:36:00.260803 IP 177.143.120.78.33622 > 192.168.10.251.59387: UDP, length 97
                          23:36:00.289429 IP 177.143.120.78.33622 > 192.168.10.251.59387: UDP, length 40
                          23:36:00.289537 IP 192.168.10.251.59387 > 177.143.120.78.33622: UDP, length 52
                          23:36:05.662522 IP 177.143.120.78.39432 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [ S ], seq 871328353, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 2,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
                          23:36:05.662592 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.39432: Flags [S.], seq 939867809, ack 871328354, win 16384, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
                          23:36:05.684492 IP 177.143.120.78.39432 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [.], ack 1, win 4380, length 0
                          23:36:05.684594 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.39432: Flags [R], seq 939867810, win 0, length 0
                          23:36:05.691017 IP 177.143.120.78.39432 > 192.168.10.251.3389: Flags [P.], ack 1, win 4380, length 19
                          23:36:05.691078 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.39432: Flags [R], seq 939867810, win 0, length 0
                          ^C189 packets captured
                          191 packets received by filter
                          0 packets dropped by kernel

                          =======================

                          There are just a LAN interface, it's connected in the LAN Switch and all Hosts are surfing ok, accessing PFSense as gateway and Proxy/Squid/SquidGuard is working fine.

                          STATES with 177.143.120.78 (Filtered)

                          tcp  200.200.200.200:40022 <- 177.143.120.78:48036  ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED 
                          udp  177.143.120.78:33622 <- 192.168.10.251:59387  MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE 
                          udp  192.168.10.251:59387 -> 200.200.200.200:30913 -> 177.143.120.78:33622  MULTIPLE:MULTIPLE 
                          tcp  200.200.200.200:40443 <- 177.143.120.78:36373  TIME_WAIT:TIME_WAIT 
                          tcp  200.200.200.200:40443 <- 177.143.120.78:42641  ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED 
                          tcp  200.200.200.200:40443 <- 177.143.120.78:49046  TIME_WAIT:TIME_WAIT 
                          tcp  200.200.200.200:40443 <- 177.143.120.78:46285  ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • W Offline
                            wwatanabe
                            last edited by

                            http://imgur.com/a/c5sDz

                            Image with the Rule and NAT.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • DerelictD Offline
                              Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                              last edited by

                              I guess I give up.  I could do the same port forward 1000 times and it would work every time.

                              Your network is in an extremely insecure state right now.

                              Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                              A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                              DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                              Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • DerelictD Offline
                                Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                last edited by

                                It looks like the NAT is working, to me.  No idea why you can't establish a session.

                                Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • W Offline
                                  wwatanabe
                                  last edited by

                                  I put the network in this open situation for testing this NAT problem.

                                  Thanks a lot for you help. I think I'll try to reinstall PFSense.

                                  Regards,

                                  Wellington

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • johnpozJ Online
                                    johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                                    last edited by

                                    "23:35:59.492551 IP 192.168.10.251.3389 > 177.143.120.78.46898: Flags [R], seq 408005353, win 0, length 0"

                                    Sure looks like box your trying to rdp to, and was correctly forwarded by pfsense is sending RESET

                                    So what does that have to do with pfsense??  Why don't you download the sniff and open it in wireshark.. But you need to look on the box to see why its sending RESET!!

                                    An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                                    If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                                    Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                                    SG-4860 25.07.1 | Lab VMs 2.8, 25.07.1

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • DerelictD Offline
                                      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                                      last edited by

                                      Probably disallowing connections from foreign networks but he doesn't want to listen.  "It works fine from LAN."

                                      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                                      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                                      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                                      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • T Offline
                                        tom-- 1
                                        last edited by

                                        Hi farion

                                        Your dropbox-links are annoying, because they are no longer available - and therefore other users can not benefit from this post: your pictures are missing now :-(

                                        It would help if you just attach pictures to your posts as other users are doing.

                                        Thanks a lot in advance,
                                        kind regards,
                                        Tom

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