Backhaul

Derelict

Did you read the document?

mikeisfly

Pay for PfSense support. You are getting hardware for free, and this helps the project out. As far learning if you make your diagram a little clearer might be easier to help. But PfSense can do:

1. NAT
2. RIP Routing
3. OSPF Routing
4. BGP Routing

So you should be able to use PfSense to do what you want.

afreaken

@mikeisfly:

Pay for PfSense support. You are getting hardware for free, and this helps the project out. As far learning if you make your diagram a little clearer might be easier to help. But PfSense can do:

1. NAT
2. RIP Routing
3. OSPF Routing
4. BGP Routing

So you should be able to use PfSense to do what you want.

Unfortunately my understanding of networking is very basic. I am trying to follow this logically, and have come to the understanding that I need to create firewall rules to pass traffic to the correct interfaces + multiWAN gateway. Please correct me if I am wrong, good chance I will be. However if this is true, I am still unsure on setting up the rules and whether I need to explicitly account for the fact that the pfSense device is not directly connected to the end network. If someone could guide me for 1 route from 1 side to the other, that would be awesome.

I have setup and configured GW's and a Load-Balanced group + all interfaces + DNS.

This is the route it takes from our 1.0/24 LAN to our 2.0/24 LAN:

1.0/24 Network –> [1.1 [u]CISCO 10.1] –> [10.2(LAN) ([u]pfSense1)*** MultiWAN Interfaces (WAN1)10.33 + (WAN2)10.65***]

–>WiFi BackHaul-->

[MultiWAN Interfaces (WAN1)10.34 + (WAN2)10.66([u]pfSense2) (LAN)10.98] –> [10.97 [u]CISCO 2.1] –> 2.0/24 Network

Currently I have a floating firewall rule in place set to:
Pass
Interfaces: WAN1 + WAN2
Direction: out
Protocol: any
Source: 1.0/24 -- (Using an alias with multiple local networks)
Destination: 2.0/24 -- (Using an alias for multiple remote networks)
Adv. GW: MultiWAN GW's

Do I need to add incoming rules? additional rules? Is this rule even correct?

Derelict

What are all the netmasks everywhere?

You will want to disable NAT, too.

You can just disable NAT and add pass IPv4 any source any dest any rules to all the pfSense interfaces in question.

Do new connections need to be established in both directions? If so you will need to configure "Multi-WAN" on both pfSenses, with each side testing both links and failing over if necessary. I've never done that before but it should work.

afreaken

@Derelict:

What are all the netmasks everywhere?

You will want to disable NAT, too.

You can just disable NAT and add pass IPv4 any source any dest any rules to all the pfSense interfaces in question.

Do new connections need to be established in both directions? If so you will need to configure "Multi-WAN" on both pfSenses, with each side testing both links and failing over if necessary. I've never done that before but it should work.

Thanks for the input, I will try disabling NAT. And yes, I don't see many examples of a loadbalanced backhaul on the internet, maybe my searching skills suck, idk.
And yes, I will multiWAN the remote site possibly later today if I can at least get this side configured right. I have to drive there since I screwed up a rule and lost connection, with no IT staff at that location /sadface.

Could you be a little clearer on the "pass IPv4 any source any dest any rules to all the pfSense interfaces in question"
Are you implying a single rule Any Source any Dest + All Interfaces? This is confusing me since there is the MultiWAN GW.
Interfaces in question? LAN + WAN1 + WAN2?
Remember I am learning. So treat me like I'm stupid.

As for the net masks:
1.0/24
2.0/24
10.0/27
10.33/27
10.64/27
10.97/27

I did not set up this network, clearly.

Derelict

Pass rules just let traffic into the interfaces. They have nothing to do with routing. The rules, however, can set gateways which DO affect routing.

What are all your pfSense interface names on both sides and what are they connected to?

While you're at the remote site you should assign someone local and show them how to log into pfSense (make a bookmark) so you can talk them through fixing something without having to go there.

afreaken

@Derelict:

Pass rules just let traffic into the interfaces. They have nothing to do with routing. The rules, however, can set gateways which DO affect routing.

What are all your pfSense interface names on both sides and what are they connected to?

While you're at the remote site you should assign someone local and show them how to log into pfSense (make a bookmark) so you can talk them through fixing something without having to go there.

Unfortunately that's not an option, the last time I asked the most technical person there to do something, walked him through it, he ended up changing the IP address of the machine to the IP of the server that he was trying to connect to. I was having him change the IP and DNS of the machine since it had been configured for a different network, and he was trying to connect to a terminal server on our side.

pfSense1 Interfaces
–---------------
LAN 10.2 (192.168.10.2/27) --- Connected to CISCO 10.1 (192.168.10.1/27) Has GW 1.1 (192.168.1.1/24)
WiFi1 10.33 (192.168.10.33/27) --- Connected to WiFi1T 10.34 (192.168.10.34/27)
WiFi2 10.65 (192.168.10.65/27) --- Connected to WiFi2T 10.66 (192.168.10.66/27)
(Also have a management interface for testing since I do not want to connect the LAN up while the rules are not set and the current Interface IP is in use)
192.168.1.180 --- On local network

pfSense2 Interfaces

LAN 10.98 (192.168.10.98/27) --- Connected to CISCO 10.97 (192.168.10.97/27) Has GW 2.1 (192.168.2.1/24)
WiFi1T 10.34 (192.168.10.34/27) --- Connected to WiFi1 10.33 (192.168.10.33/27)
WiFi2T 10.65 (192.168.10.65/27) --- Connected to WiFi2 10.65 (192.168.10.65/27)
(Also have a management interface for testing since I do not want to connect the LAN up while the rules are not set and the current Interface IP is in use)
192.168.2.180 --- On local network

Was reading another thread and amended my current rule for the time being:
Currently I have a floating firewall rule in place set to:
Pass
Interfaces: LAN
Direction: out
Protocol: any
Source: Any
Destination: Any
Adv. GW: MultiWAN GW's

Derelict

And all of that is currently up and running? You just need to add failover?

afreaken

@Derelict:

And all of that is currently up and running? You just need to add failover?

Currently our system we have is "functioning" but it doesn't do it very well; it doesn't handle load balancing/failover/link aggregation very well at all. Also 2 ports are dead on the remote side, possibly due to a surge from the cable modem.

I will know later today if the pfsense box is working if I am confident with the current rule setup, I will drive to the other location and fix the box there and mirror the rules.

I have set the 2 WiFi WAN interfaces up on the same tier. From my previous testing they should have roughly the same throughput, though 1 varies wildly. I'll need to do some fine tuning later once I actually get the link up.

So again, could you clarify my question about your comment in the previous post for the rules. And when I set the adv. GW –> MultiWAN setting for the rule, I have to choose either in or out, do I need to setup both? or OUT for LAN (what I already set up) and IN for the WAN's?

Also, thank you for responding to my post and trying to be helpful.

Derelict

In/Out is for limiters and is totally unrelated to multi-wan. All you have to do is set the gateway group in the rule.

afreaken

@Derelict:

In/Out is for limiters and is totally unrelated to multi-wan. All you have to do is set the gateway group in the rule.

Well that's where I get confused because when I set the GW group for the rule, it says I need to state a direction IN/OUT.

Could you clarify "the rule" it seems I don't need to set IN/OUT when setting rules on individual interfaces vs a floating rule.

So which interface should have the GW set? the WAN's? with ANY source to ANY dest?

I currently can ping from my computer the WiFi2 Interface, the WiFi router, but not the remote WiFi router or Interface. The pfSense box CAN.

Granted those are not critical to access, however if I cannot access those with the rules I have set, I'm skeptical of reaching the 2.0/24 network over the WiFi.

Derelict

No idea what you're talking about. See the attached. All you have to do is set the gateway group. If it's doing something else, fix your javascript/browser. All of those advanced sections are independent of each other.

advanced_section.png_thumb

afreaken

@Derelict:

No idea what you're talking about. See the attached. All you have to do is set the gateway group. If it's doing something else, fix your javascript/browser. All of those advanced sections are independent of each other.

Yeah I did that already, all I'm asking is which interface this needs to be done on, or set of interfaces. Earlier you said interfaces in question, I'm trying to figure out which ones. Maybe I have the right config and something is wrong with my wifi router, but I can't ping the remote one from my PC but I can from the pfsense box.

afreaken

Well I guess my rules are fine, I for some reason cannot ping the gateway on the remote side as well as the wifi router, however now that I have fixed the pfsense box rules, I can connect to the box from this side. cannot ping any of it's interfaces though, or the remote network

Derelict

You need static routes to the remote network. Did you allow any traffic or just TCP/UDP? If the latter, it will block ICMP (ping).

afreaken

@Derelict:

You need static routes to the remote network. Did you allow any traffic or just TCP/UDP? If the latter, it will block ICMP (ping).

Allow Any, Figured out the ping issue, there was an old rule set that I had to delete. Will set statics now. This is where I have been confused before, when I set the static for a remote network over the multiWAN WiFi backhaul, it wants to choose an interface, and I cannot replicate the rule over another interface. Does the multiWAN gateway handle the second route?

I noticed if I use an alias it seems to allow me to set statics for the same alias across multiple GW's, is this OK?

Derelict

You need static routes for the cisco to pfsense and pfsense to cisco paths. From pfSense over the wireless links, use policy routing on your LAN rules to the gateway group.

The Cisco1 needs to know how to get to 192.168.2.0/24. It needs a route for 192.168.2.0/24 to pfSense 1.
pfSense 1 needs to know how to get to 192.168.2.0/24. It needs a policy route on LAN source any dest 192.168.2.0/24 with the wireless gateway group set.
pfSense 2 needs to know how to get to 192.168.2.0/24. It needs a gateway created for Cisco2. and a static route for 192.168.2.0/24 to Cisco2.
Cisco2 does not need a route because 192.168.2.0/24 is a connected network.

And the reverse for the other direction. This is assuming the wireless links/pfSense is not the default gateway at either location. in that case just point the default to the next upstream device.

Guest

@Derelict:

My point is why not just failover on the Ciscos?

Ok this is true, but on the other hand why not laod balance using policy based routing
between the pfSense firewalls?

phil.davis

I am not sure why you are using floating rules - that is where the confusion about In/Out is coming from, floating rules let you apply the rule on traffic coming In or Out of an Interface, there is also the terminology of In/Out for limiters - a different place in the GUI and different thing.

I think you really want:

Static route on each pfSense pointing to its local Cisco for a route to the subnet behind the Cisco.
Do not do any NAT on the "WAN" backhaul interfaces - perhaps just make those ordinary LAN-style interfaces (no Upstream Gateway defined)
Gateway defined for the IP address on the other side of each "WAN" backhaul link.
Gateway group/s that include the 2 gateways with whatever tiers you want to make it load-balance or fail-over.
Pass rule/s on the LAN interface to pass traffic source: the subnet behind the Cisco (and the local pfSense LAN subnet for completeness), destination: the subnet behind remote end Cisco (and the remote end pfSense LAN subnet for completeness), gateway: the gateway group you made.
Pass rule/s on the WAN backhaul interfaces to allow incoming traffic from the other end (or just allow all to get it going).
(These "pass" rules on individual interfaces are "In" rules - you do not get a choice about that - they will apply to traffic flows initiated from the interface they are on)

It should all work in a conceptually similar way to having a couple of site-to-site VPN tunnels between pfSense systems and routing intranet traffic across them.

afreaken

@phil.davis:

I am not sure why you are using floating rules - that is where the confusion about In/Out is coming from, floating rules let you apply the rule on traffic coming In or Out of an Interface, there is also the terminology of In/Out for limiters - a different place in the GUI and different thing.

I think you really want:

Static route on each pfSense pointing to its local Cisco for a route to the subnet behind the Cisco.

Do not do any NAT on the "WAN" backhaul interfaces - perhaps just make those ordinary LAN-style interfaces (no Upstream Gateway defined)

Gateway defined for the IP address on the other side of each "WAN" backhaul link.

Gateway group/s that include the 2 gateways with whatever tiers you want to make it load-balance or fail-over.

Pass rule/s on the LAN interface to pass traffic source: the subnet behind the Cisco (and the local pfSense LAN subnet for completeness), destination: the subnet behind remote end Cisco (and the remote end pfSense LAN subnet for completeness), gateway: the gateway group you made.

Pass rule/s on the WAN backhaul interfaces to allow incoming traffic from the other end (or just allow all to get it going).
(These "pass" rules on individual interfaces are "In" rules - you do not get a choice about that - they will apply to traffic flows initiated from the interface they are on)

It should all work in a conceptually similar way to having a couple of site-to-site VPN tunnels between pfSense systems and routing intranet traffic across them.

Thanks, I will try this out. What Derelict recommended may work, I need to go to the remote site and fix/replace the remote pfsense box. It gets stuck in the shutdown process when restarting. I got sick last week and took time off so I haven't gotten around to it yet. I will try both and respond back with the results.