Same network on multiple interfaces
-
I use a bridge for the wifi and lan interface.
Why?
And another bridge that bridges my dmz network over opt2 and opt3.
And again. Why?
is there a better way to stretch a network over multiple interfaces without using a bridge?
What do you mean by "stretch"? What's the goal here?
-
Bridge should normally be the LAST thing you do.. If you need more ports use a switch.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish?
-
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
I have a network 192.168.100.x which I would like to use on the wifi interface and the LAN interface
I also have a network 172.x.y.z which I would like to use on opt2 and opt3It is a small office setup so I would not like to use a hardware switch and I do have enough interfaces on my pfsense.
Can I do this better not using a bridge?Kind regards,
Mark
-
Yeah. Get a switch. (Still doesn't explain why untrusted wifi needs to be on the same subnet as trusted LAN.)
-
ok thanks. I understand the best way to accomplish this is to get a switch.
regardless if the best choices are made. thinking out of the box. If I would like to use the same network on both opt2 and opt3. Is using a bridge the best choice or is there a better way that I can acchieve with my pfsense box and no additional hardware? -
You can get a switch for $20… Why would you not go that route? For $40 you can get a 8 port smart gig switch with support for vlans, etc.. Why you want to bridge to a very valuable router/firewall interface just to not get a switch?? Make no sense at all.
Also with dok, as he is spot on most everything wireless really should be on its own segment.. If you want to allow access to specific things on your wired lan - then create the pinholes in your firewall rules to allow those specific resources..
If you really really want your wifi on your same segment - then just get a real AP or even a $20 soho wifi router and use it as an AP and connect it to your switch that is on your lan segment - there you go wifi and lan on same segment.. You could even run AC that way vs the very limited wifi support that is in pfsense.
I personally would just get a real AP as well that can be properly placed in your location for best wifi coverage, or even multiples, etc. Vs trying to use wifi off where your pfsense is located - which normally should be in a locked closet, etc.. And connect that to one of pfsense interfaces so its on its own segment.. Get an AP that allows vlans and you can then have a guest wireless that has no access to your lan resources and a trusted wifi ssid that does have some access into your lan resources as deemed fit.
-
You're right about the wifi part and I will put it in it's own segment. However in my situation I do not need additional ports. I just need opt2 and opt3 to have the same network on it. Is this possible without using a bridge?
-
No.@mark81:
I just need opt2 and opt3 to have the same network on it. Is this possible without using a bridge?
No.
-
ok. which smart switch are you talking about for the 20USD? :)
-
Whatever switch from garbage dump will do the job, doesn't need to be smart at all… Considering we are talking about connecting two boxes here, I cannot see much use for "smart" features there. That AP instead of wifi card is definitely a good idea as well... (If talking about $$ budget, get something that's capable of reliably running OpenWRT/DD-WRT, instead of the garbage stock FW.)
-
I said smart switch could be had for $40
Here is one
http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-SG108E-8-Port-Gigabit-Tag-Based/dp/B00K4DS5KUHere is dumb switch for $18
http://www.amazon.com/TP-LINK-TL-SG108-1000Mbps-Desktop-Gigabit/dp/B00A121WN6Here is a 8 port dumb gig for 22.5
http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-ProSAFE-GS208-8-Port-Gigabit/dp/B00KFD0SYKIf you look you could prob find a 5 port smart for about 20 bucks as well..
