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

    NAT Reflection broken since upgrade to 2.2

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    17 Posts 4 Posters 2.7k 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.
    • O
      osolo
      last edited by

      @doktornotor if by limiter you mean Firewall -> Traffic Shaper -> Limiter then no, I don't have any.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • K
        KingViper
        last edited by

        I installed pfSense 2.2 brand new to migrate away from my EdgeRouter Lite and I also cannot get NAT reflection to work. I know my setup is pretty simple. 1 WAN, 1 LAN, 8 or so NATs, DYNDns. I've got an inkling it has something to do with the DNS Resolver setup but I'm not very familiar with how it works to know for sure.

        Are there any specific logs to look in? I don't see packets being dropped by the firewall.

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

          What would the resolver have to do with nat reflection??

          So I am running 2.2.2, I just created a nat for :8080 to go to 192.168.1.14:80, when I created the nat I picked nat+proxy..  Sure seems to work here.  As you can see I have my browser hitting my public IP on port 8080 and getting the page served by my local box on 192.168.1.14:80

          Why don't you post up your rules for wan and and your nat and we can take a look see what might be going wrong.

          workshere.png
          workshere.png_thumb

          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 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • O
            osolo
            last edited by

            @johnpoz I have a lot of rules as you can see from the attached screen shot.  I included the config file as well.

            Thanks for your help.

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

              Yuck… Eeeeew. Yikes.  :o

              Don't have time for this, good luck. On a quick note, WTH is that "- 10" destination port?

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

                Why would you send 80 to RDP port 3389??  RDP can use udp so that for sure could have issues.

                Also seeing that your blocking rfc1918 on your wan.. So coming from a rfc1918 address, hitting your public - I would think that would be blocked right there from nat reflection working.

                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 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • O
                  osolo
                  last edited by

                  @johnpoz The reason I send 80->RDP is that I sometimes have to access RDP from networks that stupidly block everything but 80 and 443.  It's a simple yet effective hack.

                  I removed both the rfc1918 and the bogon blocks on WAN (they were already off for my secondary WAN_ADSL) and it had no effect.

                  I just noticed that in NAT+Proxy mode sometimes a little bit comes through (e.g. on an HTTP connection some of a page will start loading and then fail).  I'm wondering if the Proxy app is crashing or not working properly.  Is there any way to diagnose this?

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

                    Do those rules even get loaded? I cannot see how's -10 a valid destination port.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • O
                      osolo
                      last edited by

                      @doktornotor That's a very old rule that probably got corrupted by upgrading pfSense over the years.  I deleted it and it made no difference.

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

                        With the amount of port forwards, I would not touch the NAT + proxy stuff at all.

                        The NAT + proxy mode uses a helper program to send packets to the target of the port forward. It is useful in setups where the interface and/or gateway IP used for communication with the target cannot be accurately determined at the time the rules are loaded. Reflection rules are not created for ranges larger than 500 ports and will not be used for more than 1000 ports total between all port forwards. Only TCP and UDP protocols are supported.

                        Also, the stuff looks just all wrong??? Look at the NAT ports. 25 -> *; 443 -> *; 993 -> * ?! Etc. WTH.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • O
                          osolo
                          last edited by

                          @doktornotor I have no particular affinity for proxy mode, that's simply what used to work.  I agree that Pure NAT is the better way to go, but I have no idea where to begin with diagnosing the fact that it doesn't work.

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

                            See the previous post! Why is there "any" (*) in the NAT ports? That's just not right. You should set the  Redirect target port properly. This seems even impossible to set up via the GUI.

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

                              yeah you can not have * for dest nat port and expect it to work..

                              Clean all that nonsense and which reflection is not working..

                              You want the correct way to admin your network when they only allow 80 and 443.. You VPN over 443 and there you go full access to anything you need on your network..

                              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 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • O
                                osolo
                                last edited by

                                @doktornotor, @johnpoz Thanks for pointing out the * in the NAT rules.  I'm not sure how that happened but I went through them all and fixed them.  It still didn't help.

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

                                  Well, I simply do not think your configuration state is anywhere near sane. Things like the above are really impossible to configure via the GUI. God knows what else got screwed. Would flush this down the drain and restart from scratch.

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