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

    Blocking access to internal nets

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IPv6
    17 Posts 7 Posters 1.8k 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.
    • P
      pfbolt
      last edited by

      Given making my ISP act differently is not practically feasible, it would seem using the "net" options is the way to go. However, these can not be combined in aliases, as far as I know.

      On IPv4, I have have an alias called "private" which covers 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16, and I can add outbound rules allowing port 80 and 443 to "NOT private".
      Great. One rule allows outbound traffic, and I can add additional rules for any internal pinholes. Great.

      With IPv6, I don't see a way to do this. I'd apparently need a setup like the following for each interface:
      1. A couple of pinhole rules for internal servers I want to be accessible cross-interface
      2. General blocking rules for traffic to the "net" of every other internal interface
      3. An allow rule generally allowing port 80 and 443 to anywhere, which includes any interface I forgot to block, or moved around or whatnot

      This is not a pretty solution.

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

        Get a prettier ISP.

        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
        • P
          pfbolt
          last edited by

          This is why customization exists. We don't ask people who's hardware doesn't do hardware TCP segmentation to "get a better NIC". We don't ask people who's ISP's require a certain mac address (presumably from their shitty provided router) to get one that doesn't require that, and we don't ask people who wish to communicate with a weird IPSec router that insists on acting as the initiator to get a less weird router at the remote site. pfSense will work with and around all of those restrictions, and plenty of others.

          Your insistence that this particular issue must be resolved at the ISP level is really not helpful, and I don't understand what makes this case stand out as one that couldn't be handled by pfSense. After all, there's nothing about DHCP that allows you to expect your lease to remain valid outside of your given lease time. The whole point is that it's not static.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P
            pfbolt
            last edited by

            I ended up writing a script that regularly polls the IPv6 IP's and masks of every interface that has a private IPv4 address. I output that along with my previous list of RFC1918 addresses and put it all in a file for pfSense to read. If the file changes, I trigger an alias update via PHP. Seems to work quite well :)

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

              For reference :P

              https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/96

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

                Nobody would dream of getting an IPv4 /19 routed for use on internal networks that the ISP could just change on a whim any time they felt like it.

                Until the ISPs get a clue, people will come to the conclusion, like you, that it is STILL better to just use IPv4 and NAT.

                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
                • K
                  kpa
                  last edited by

                  Does any of you have any sort of feedback from your ISP why they keep doing that? I hope it's not the usual ignorance of "it's safer for the client". It really boggles my mind because the IPv6 address space is so large that you could assign a personal /48 to every single person who has every lived on earth, that's a hell a lot /48s.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • P
                    pfbolt
                    last edited by

                    My most recent reply was that my ISP is still rolling out the IPv6 infrastructure, so they'll be changing things from time to time. Also, non-static DHCP is just how they do things, because static IP's are for business connections, and those cost like 10x the price for the same speed.  :-\

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

                      So until they get their crap together get a /48 from HE.net and use a tunnel. They manage to statically assign /48s to people all over the world - free - and manage to stay in business.

                      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
                      • P
                        pfbolt
                        last edited by

                        What sort of bandwidth do you get on those?

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

                          Works fine. I never thought about it. I am native now and not really in a position to test it.

                          What I get won't matter to you. It's what you get that will matter.

                          Try it and see. It's free.

                          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
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.