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

    PfSense won't forward traffic form LAN server to internet

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    28 Posts 7 Posters 5.2k 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.
    • D
      doktornotor Banned
      last edited by

      Perhaps you could finally look at the firewall logs?!?!?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        Supermule Banned
        last edited by

        Nope…

        It looks like this...

        Menu -> Firewall -> NAT -> Outbound

        outbound_nat.PNG
        outbound_nat.PNG_thumb

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • L
          lockheed
          last edited by

          @doktornotor:

          Perhaps you could finally look at the firewall logs?!?!?

          What am I looking for? I already said I could see nothing related to the IP I am accessing the web server from.

          @Supermule:

          Nope…

          It looks like this...

          Menu -> Firewall -> NAT -> Outbound

          That's what I have:
          http://i.imgur.com/fWWY3XA.png

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • G
            gjaltemba
            last edited by

            @lockheed:

            @gjaltemba:

            You can try unchecking the box “Block private networks” on the screen Interfaces WAN (at the bottom) and see if that solves your problem.

            That's one of those things I tried and forgot to mention  :(

            But the screen shot of the firewall rules shows Block private networks is in effect. I am confused.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • L
              lockheed
              last edited by

              @gjaltemba:

              But the screen shot of the firewall rules shows Block private networks is in effect. I am confused.

              Because I re-enabled it after I found out it did not change anything. Anyway, now I have it disabled again.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • G
                gjaltemba
                last edited by

                @lockheed:

                ★ My setup:

                Host (ArchLinux, nanoBox):
                Physical interfaces: with eth0 (no ip) and wlan0 (hostapd).
                Virtual interfaces: br0 (static IP 192.168.7.2 assigned with netctl profile)

                Guest (pfSense inside KVM):
                Guest interfaces:
                vtnet0 - bridged to eth0
                vtnet1 - bridged to br0 (192.168.7.1)

                My Host is also a web sever. I do not know if this is good practice, but br0 is the interface which which host services connect to internet.

                Does this mean pfsense WAN interface is assigned to vtnet1, has a static ip of 192.168.7.1 and pfsense LAN interface is assigned to vtnet0?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • L
                  lockheed
                  last edited by

                  @gjaltemba:

                  Does this mean pfsense WAN interface is assigned to vtnet1, has a static ip of 192.168.7.1 and pfsense LAN interface is assigned to vtnet0?

                  No, the other way around:
                  eth0-WAN-85.x.x.x-vtnet0
                  br0-LAN-192.168.7.1-vtnet1

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • G
                    gjaltemba
                    last edited by

                    @lockheed:

                    @gjaltemba:

                    Does this mean pfsense WAN interface is assigned to vtnet1, has a static ip of 192.168.7.1 and pfsense LAN interface is assigned to vtnet0?

                    No, the other way around:
                    eth0-WAN-85.x.x.x-vtnet0
                    br0-LAN-192.168.7.1-vtnet1

                    Does 192.168.7.2 have 192.168.7.1 as gateway? I am guessing not because it has internet with pfsense in shutdown.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • L
                      lockheed
                      last edited by

                      @gjaltemba:

                      Does 192.168.7.2 have 192.168.7.1 as gateway?
                      Yes.
                      @gjaltemba:

                      I am guessing not because it has internet with pfsense in shutdown.

                      No, it doesn't. It only has LAN if I set br0 to static IP. I can then connect to it with my laptop (also with static IP) which connects to hostapd (bridged with br0).

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • H
                        hda
                        last edited by

                        @lockheed:

                        …
                        Well, I need my server on the LAN to be accessible from WAN.

                        Test approach: simplify your config, exclude your reliance on aliases & name(s).

                        You need probably:
                        [Firewall: NAT: Port Forward] with a rule like:
                        WAN TCP * * WAN address 80 192.168.x.y 80

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • L
                          lockheed
                          last edited by

                          @hda:

                          Test approach: simplify your config, exclude your reliance on aliases & name(s).

                          Thanks, but
                          @lockheed:

                          (nanoBox alias is assigned to 192.168.7.2 ip. Replacing alias with the ip itself makes no difference)

                          I have a new find that might shed some light on the source of the problem.

                          When I am on the host, pinging google.com works BUT going to google.com in a browser or with wget does not. In fact, no URL address works at all in any other capacity than PING.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S
                            Supermule Banned
                            last edited by

                            Change your outbound nat for the subnet to include UDP as well.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • L
                              lockheed
                              last edited by

                              @Supermule:

                              Change your outbound nat for the subnet to include UDP as well.

                              Like so? http://i.imgur.com/4jgDqJj.png
                              It didn't help.

                              Also, please remember that those issues are experienced only on the Host of the pfSense VM. Every other pfSense manager LAN client works just fine.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • D
                                doktornotor Banned
                                last edited by

                                @lockheed:

                                @Supermule:

                                Change your outbound nat for the subnet to include UDP as well.

                                Like so? http://i.imgur.com/4jgDqJj.png
                                It didn't help.

                                There is nothing useful visible there at all regarding protocol. (And please, learn to use the IMG tag.)

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • L
                                  lockheed
                                  last edited by

                                  @doktornotor:

                                  There is nothing useful visible there at all regarding protocol. (And please, learn to use the IMG tag.)

                                  I selected ALL protocols. As for IMG, I am giving links to images because I did not want to clutter the thread with auto-displaying images.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • L
                                    lockheed
                                    last edited by

                                    I just created an identical pfSense on VirtualBox and cloned the config on it. Everything works fine.

                                    Here's the ifconfig of KVM setup:

                                    ifconfig 
br0: flags=4163<up,broadcast,running,multicast>  mtu 1500
        inet 192.168.7.2  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.7.255
        inet6 fe80::4ccb:a9ff:feb7:5617  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20
        ether a0:88:69:0d:5c:41  txqueuelen 0  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 2825  bytes 330247 (322.5 KiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 3339  bytes 802554 (783.7 KiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

enp2s0: flags=4163<up,broadcast,running,multicast>  mtu 1500
        inet6 fe80::5ea1:75a3:7d46:befd  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20
        ether 00:90:27:77:fb:02  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 223027  bytes 20719723 (19.7 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 178  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 6747  bytes 2101069 (2.0 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

lo: flags=73<up,loopback,running>  mtu 65536
        inet 127.0.0.1  netmask 255.0.0.0
        inet6 ::1  prefixlen 128  scopeid 0x10 <host>loop  txqueuelen 0  (Local Loopback)
        RX packets 12388  bytes 1341938 (1.2 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 12388  bytes 1341938 (1.2 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

macvtap0: flags=4163<up,broadcast,running,multicast>  mtu 1500
        inet6 fe80::26f4:1e55:97a0:c0cb  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20
        ether 00:90:27:77:fb:02  txqueuelen 500  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 217268  bytes 20328935 (19.3 MiB)
        RX errors 8919  dropped 8919  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 6620  bytes 2073711 (1.9 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

vnet0: flags=4163<up,broadcast,running,multicast>  mtu 1500
        inet6 fe80::5d6b:398c:6b44:d602  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20
        ether fe:54:00:6f:2e:15  txqueuelen 500  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 4558  bytes 4062075 (3.8 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 4583  bytes 624983 (610.3 KiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

wlp1s0: flags=4163<up,broadcast,running,multicast>  mtu 1500
        inet6 fe80::6e57:fe92:1321:1521  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20
        ether a0:88:69:0d:5c:41  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 6040  bytes 811010 (792.0 KiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 7038  bytes 4986969 (4.7 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0</up,broadcast,running,multicast></up,broadcast,running,multicast></up,broadcast,running,multicast></host></up,loopback,running></up,broadcast,running,multicast></up,broadcast,running,multicast>

                                    and of a much cleaner, and - more importantly - working VirtualBox setup:

                                    # ifconfig 
br0: flags=4163<up,broadcast,running,multicast>mtu 1500
        inet 192.168.7.2  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.7.255
        inet6 fe80::a288:69ff:fe0d:5c41  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20
        ether a0:88:69:0d:5c:41  txqueuelen 0  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 4999  bytes 1686341 (1.6 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 9269  bytes 2203282 (2.1 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

enp2s0: flags=4163<up,broadcast,running,multicast>mtu 1500
        inet 192.168.11.13  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.11.255
        inet6 fe80::201:2eff:fe4e:4b99  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20
        ether 00:01:2e:4e:4b:99  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 175668  bytes 58689989 (55.9 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 35  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 33594  bytes 2862399 (2.7 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

lo: flags=73<up,loopback,running>mtu 65536
        inet 127.0.0.1  netmask 255.0.0.0
        inet6 ::1  prefixlen 128  scopeid 0x10 <host>loop  txqueuelen 0  (Local Loopback)
        RX packets 44600  bytes 11957420 (11.4 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 44600  bytes 11957420 (11.4 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0

wlp1s0: flags=4163<up,broadcast,running,multicast>mtu 1500
        inet6 fe80::a288:69ff:fe0d:5c41  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20
        ether a0:88:69:0d:5c:41  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 4400  bytes 1698452 (1.6 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 8264  bytes 2315002 (2.2 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0</up,broadcast,running,multicast></host></up,loopback,running></up,broadcast,running,multicast></up,broadcast,running,multicast>

                                    So it looks like KVM is not suitable for hosting pfSense VM if host machine is required have access to the internet. It is a shame as I was hoping for KVM to be not just working, but a superior solution.

                                    Can someone move this thread to Virtualization?

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