Two gateways, two subnets, one internet, subnet connectivity issue
-
If you take a step back, look at the design, and forget the fact that LAN2's WAN is in a reserved IP space, it becomes clear. It's not working because you are essentially trying to access 192.168.5.0/24 over the internet, which you are not going to be able to do without a port forward and firewall entry. You can remove your current static route on PFsense as reserved IP's are not routable over the internet, so that traffic will never egress a WAN interface. You will also need to uncheck the "Block private networks and loopback addresses" option on your WAN interface @ LAN 2.
As currently connected, you have two options:
-
Create port forwards for everything you want to connect to on LAN 2
-
Create a site-to-site tunnel between the two sites
You have a design issue that needs to be addressed. If you're connecting two sites via a direct connection, you want to connect the sites via LAN interfaces (not WAN). So, if you were going to keep both edge devices where they are, I would:
-
Add a 3rd NIC to PFsense on LAN 2 and assign it a static IP in the 192.168.1.1/24 range (e.g. 192.168.1.254)
-
@ LAN 2, patch your wireless bridge to the 3rd NIC
-
@ LAN 2, add an any/any rule to the 3rd NIC interface
-
@ LAN 1, add an any/any rule to the LAN interface (you can refine it later if needed)
-
@ LAN 1, add a static route to 192.168.5.0/24 with a gateway of 192.168.1.254
-
@ LAN 2, PFsense already knows how to get to 192.168.1.0/24 because of the locally connected interface, so no static route needed here
-
And you're done.
A design consideration, if you're keeping that DDWRT router, considering LAN 2 is routed thru LAN 1, ideally you want your firewall at the head end, so I would swap the edge devices. Otherwise, replace that DDWRT router with PFsense, so both edge devices are PFsense.
Another option would be to extend LAN 1's network over to LAN 2's location by simply plugging the wireless bridge into the switch @ LAN 2 and remove the edge device altogether. If you go this route, the same design consideration applies, I would stick PFsense at the head end.
-
-
Yes, the pfSense WAN is connected to the LAN of the DDWRT
For quick reference
–---------------------
DDWRT has LAN IP of: 192.168.1.1
DDWRT has WAN assigned by ISP
pfSense Box has WAN IP of 192.168.1.112
pfSense Box has LAN IP of 192.168.5.1WAN Firewall Rule on pfSense box:
Action: Pass
Interface: WAN
TCP/IP: IPv4
Protocol: TCP
Source: Set to Network - 192.168.1.0 /24
Destination: Set to Network - 192.168.5.0 /24
Destination Port: ANYLet me know what else to check. I'm completely stumped. I can get in to the pfsense config/admin from the 192.168.1.0 subnet, but can not access anything else behind the pfsense box.
-
I'd like to keep an edge router/gateway at each location to keep each network working independently if the wireless bridge fails. This way the networks can function by themselves with the exception of connectivity to the internet. Almost everything important is on LAN2 (pfsense side) and that is where work is done 99% of the time. I don't mind creating a firewall rule for the individual items in LAN1 that I want to have access to LAN2, that would be ok. The question here is would that use internet to create that connection or would it still function without internet connection? I'd like the networks to be able to talk if the internet is down or turned off.
-
This way the networks can function by themselves with the exception of connectivity to the internet.
What do you mean by this? Because hypothetically if you statically addressed everything on that remote site, your network would still function with just a switch and no router. With your current setup, what does the router add in an outage? DHCP? Local DNS resolution?
-
I don't mind creating a firewall rule for the individual items in LAN1 that I want to have access to LAN2, that would be ok. The question here is would that use internet to create that connection or would it still function without internet connection? I'd like the networks to be able to talk if the internet is down or turned off.
The two sites are connected via wireless bridges, so the internet is not involved in any communication between the two sites.
-
It adds DHCP.
Example. LAN1 –---------wifi Bridge --------------LAN2--devices on lan 2
If the wifi bridge goes down or there is an issue on the LAN1 hardware/software AND there is no DHCP on LAN2 then the entire LAN2 network will not function at all. I'd like to keep LAN2 function (except internet) regardless of what happens in LAN1.
-
A couple things. If I were to go with the route of connecting the two networks via LAN to LAN, could I simply reassign the WAN NIC to a LAN and not have a WAN port on the pfSense Machine and do what you have described?
For now, I'd like to properly setup a port forward in pfSense to allow an IP from LAN1 to access LAN2. The IP I'd like to give access is 192.168.1.115. pfSense port forward options under firewall-nat-port forward
Interface: WAN
Protocol: TCP
Source: What type of source? Wan IP, LanIP, Network etc…?
Source Port Range: ANY
Destination: LAN net: 192.168.5.0 /24 I think this is right, but let me know
Destination Port Range: Type/Number???
Redirect Target IP: ?
Redirect Target Port: ? -
If I were to go with the route of connecting the two networks via LAN to LAN, could I simply reassign the WAN NIC to a LAN and not have a WAN port on the pfSense Machine and do what you have described?
Good question, I suppose if you remove the gateway from the "WAN" interface and just rename it… it would then become a LAN interface... sure.
For now, I'd like to properly setup a port forward in pfSense to allow an IP from LAN1 to access LAN2. The IP I'd like to give access is 192.168.1.115. pfSense port forward options under firewall-nat-port forward
Interface: WAN
Protocol: TCP
Source: What type of source? Wan IP, LanIP, Network etc…?
Source Port Range: ANY
Destination: LAN net: 192.168.5.0 /24 I think this is right, but let me know
Destination Port Range: Type/Number???
Redirect Target IP: ?
Redirect Target Port: ?Port forwards are for redirecting external traffic to a specific internal resource on specific ports, so that's not going to work. For example, if you wanted to only allow 192.168.1.115 access to a web server on 192.168.5.100, you would enter this:
Interface: WAN
Protocol: TCP
Source: "Single host or alias" "192.168.1.115/32"
Source Port Range: ANY
Destination: "WAN address"
Destination Port Range: 80
Redirect Target IP: 192.168.5.100
Redirect Target Port: 80If you want to allow anyone to the web server, you would change your source back to "any"
Then, @ LAN 1, to access the web server @ LAN 2, you would enter the WAN address of LAN 2 in your browser…i.e. http://192.168.1.112 and the traffic will be redirected to 192.168.5.100 on port 80.
-
So the port forward doesn't really seem like the best way to go about it then.
I'm not really familiar with the site-site tunnel at all or IPSEC.
Seems like trying to change the WAN on the pfsense box to a LAN connection and attempt the following:
You have a design issue that needs to be addressed. If you're connecting two sites via a direct connection, you want to connect the sites via LAN interfaces (not WAN). So, if you were going to keep both edge devices where they are, I would:
Add a 3rd NIC to PFsense on LAN 2 and assign it a static IP in the 192.168.1.1/24 range (e.g. 192.168.1.254)
@ LAN 2, patch your wireless bridge to the 3rd NIC
@ LAN 2, add an any/any rule to the 3rd NIC interface
@ LAN 1, add an any/any rule to the LAN interface (you can refine it later if needed)
@ LAN 1, add a static route to 192.168.5.0/24 with a gateway of 192.168.1.254
@ LAN 2, PFsense already knows how to get to 192.168.1.0/24 because of the locally connected interface, so no static route needed here
And you're done. -
Good question, I suppose if you remove the gateway from the "WAN" interface and just rename it… it would then become a LAN interface... sure.
I'm not seeing where I can remove the gateway on the WAN interface.
-
So the port forward doesn't really seem like the best way to go about it then.
Correct. Because you have to create a port forward for every different connection you want to make
I'm not really familiar with the site-site tunnel at all or IPSEC.
I would actually use OpenVPN here, the setup is easier, but either way, there's no reason to add the encryption overhead if it isn't necessary.
Seems like trying to change the WAN on the pfsense box to a LAN connection and attempt the following:
From a design perspective, this is your best option, yes. In an ideal world, you would configure a separate interface on DDWRT and create an isolated transit network, but that's another conversation and I'm not familiar with creating and assigning interfaces on DDWRT.
I'm not seeing where I can remove the gateway on the WAN interface.
In the "General Configuration" section, Change the IPv4 Configuration Type to "static" and then in the "Static IPv4 Configuration" section, leave the IPv4 Upstream gateway option as "None"
-
Thanks, reading over your post now. Someone posted up a picture of a hand written setup. I was looking over that when I refreshed and it was taken down.
-
Thanks, reading over your post now. Someone posted up a picture of a hand written setup. I was looking over that when I refreshed and it was taken down.
Yes, he had the right idea about creating a transit network on separate interfaces on both sides, but some of the networking was incorrect and it wouldn't have worked.
-
@ LAN 2, add an any/any rule to the 3rd NIC interface
For this, you are referring to the firewall rules, correct? If I named newly resigned WAN to NIC3 since that's what you were referring to adding and to lessen confusion between the LANS then would the rule be like this:
This rule is being created ON LAN2 (pfsense)
Interface: NIC3
TCP/IP: IPv4
Protocol: TCP
Source: any
Destination: any
Destination Port Range: Leave blank or? -
I've created the static route on LAN1.
Destination: 192.168.5.0
Subnet MASK: 255.255.255.0
Gateway: 192.168.1.254Then when I go to change the WAN to static and assign it an IP of 192.168.1.254, I get the following error in pfsense: This IPv4 address conflicts with a Static Route.
edit: by the way, thank you very much for your assistance. It is greatly appreciated. Same goes to everyone else.
-
I kind of figured you might run into that error. I'm thinking something like this might work:
http://i.imgur.com/95ouWv4.jpg
I accidentally deleted my post with it originally.
-
The local and remote site are backwards in respect to the hardware being used (pfsense vs ddwrt).
Are you suggesting to still hook the wireless bridge up on the remote site to a WAN port or to a LAN port?
-
I have not used DDWRT in a long time so I'm unfamiliar with the options. Do you have the ability to create an OPT type port on the DDWRT side?
-
I can unbridge one of the physical ports and I believe assign it a new IP.
Can I load pfsense on this DDWRT router? or is there a better option. It is a WRT320N (V1) router.
-
Yea that's probably what you're looking for.
I still think an IPSEC tunnel between the sites where the phase two protocol set to AH is your best option. That way you avoid the NAT issue and port forwarding issues.
I'm pretty sure DDWRT supports IPSEC but I couldn't tell you how to set it up. Optimally, it'd be best if you could put a pfSense device on the remote site. All you'd need is a spare PC with two NIC ports.