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

    Access LAN behind OpenVPN client

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved OpenVPN
    16 Posts 4 Posters 3.7k 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.
    • D
      doktornotor Banned
      last edited by

      As said above, use firewall rules on the OpenVPN tab, do not mess with remote networks.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        sebyp
        last edited by

        Guys, I really appreciate the input, however that /32 route is not the issue. The /24 route that pfSense is supposed to install on itself pointing to the LAN behind the Mikrotik client is the issue.

        Any thoughts on that?

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

          Sigh. pfSense has NO /24 route to install. You replaced that with the /32 nonsense. Then there's also this /30 nonsense. Just what are you trying to do there?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S
            sebyp
            last edited by

            LE: my bad, I've accidentally switched the pictures. I've just corrected them in the initial post. Sorry once again

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

              Why does not the CSC tunnel network match the tunnel network configured on the server? Just check on 3 sites and this "just works" when you do things consistently. Like

              • topology set to subnet in OpenVPN Server settings, instead of the horrible net30 thing.
              • no /30 anywhere in CSC
              • no /32 anywhere at all
              • use matching subnets across the client and server
              • use firewall rules to limit access
              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • S
                sebyp
                last edited by

                Because I would like to allocate specific /30 prefixes for specific clients.

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

                  @sebyp:

                  Because I would like to allocate specific /30 prefixes for specific clients.

                  That's what done by default with topology net30 in the server settings (generally horrible thing and cannot see how's that desirable for the goal you want, at all…)

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

                    however that /32 route is not the issue.

                    If you know what the issue is (or is not), why are you here asking for help?

                    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
                    • D
                      doktornotor Banned
                      last edited by

                      Also, if you are trying to make your life a real pain by emulating some wannabe static DHCP in OpenVPN, the CSC should allocate /30 at the end of the /24 pool. Not from the beginning! Plus, limit the number of allowed connections so that they are not assigned to someone else anyway.

                      Finally, those tunnels must be "Peer To Peer", not Remote Access (good that we have ~4K resolution screenshot with half of the settings missing.  ::))

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        sebyp
                        last edited by

                        OK, so we've finally came to a conclusion: I missed the "peer to peer" vs "remote access" configuration, but now that you guys mentioned it makes perfect sense. I'll try to see what I can do and post my findings here, should anyone be interested.

                        On a more general topic, @doktornotor, I really appreciate your suggestions and technical feedback (although I don't agree with some of them you have a fair technical point / concern). What I didn't appreciate that much was the tone and little sarcasm which I think could have been avoided.

                        Thanks

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