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

    Reduce Outgoing NAT rules

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    12 Posts 5 Posters 1.6k 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.
    • S
      saosborne9
      last edited by

      This is similar but I am unsure of my etiquette. Please forgive me if I am posting incorrectly. I really have tried to search for the solution. I have used pfsense for several years and love it, haven't needed to ask help. I also would like to streamline port rules. I went to aliases to make a bundle of the ports I need for a mail server, then I just applied the bundle to each server with an outside virtual ip to separate the traffic. Because this does not work, I guess the ports have to be in succession or it does not work. Is this correct?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        saosborne9
        last edited by

        After looking at this post you did, I deleted the destination ports in my rules and put any in there. Now all traffic is sent there. Is this a bad rule?
        https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=112710.msg627209#msg627209

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

          Not sure how creating a alias is sim to the OP question..

          If you have a question about how to do a alias, start your own thread would of been proper.  No your port in your aliases do not have to be sequential

          So your asking if you can do a port forward rule with multiple ports in via an alias?  Like forward 80,443 to the same box in one rule via an alias?

          "I deleted the destination ports in my rules and put any in there."

          So you have a port forward rule with ANY as the destination?  Yeah that would normally be BAD!!

          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
          • M
            mtownshend1972
            last edited by

            These IPs are routed to me but the issue is I have multiple servers that need to use the same external IP address.

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

              "These IPs are routed to me but the issue is I have multiple servers that need to use the same external IP address."

              Sounds like you have a mess - why would your servers that have a public IP need to use the same one?

              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
              • K
                kpa
                last edited by

                If you have multiple LAN addresses that need to use the same public IP you should group your LAN servers to contiguous groups of addresses that all share the same public IP within a single group. Then you can reduce the individual outbound NAT rules to fewer rules that each match a wider network (the source network setting) than just a single address.

                For example if you have managed to get a group of servers that all use the same public IP (let's say 4 of them) into addresses 192.168.1.128 - 192.168.1.131 that can be matched in a single outbound NAT rule with a source network specification 192.168.1.128/30.

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

                  if his public IPs are routed to him, why would he be doing nat in the first place??

                  Confused to this setup.. So you have 2000 public IPs but more than that in servers?  So you need to have lets say these 4000 servers share these 2000 public IPs?

                  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
                  • K
                    kpa
                    last edited by

                    Well yes if the IP block is routed then I don't see the point of doing any NAT, he is either not aware that a routed subnet can be used directly on LAN or DMZ hosts or he has omitted some important details of the setup.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M
                      mtownshend1972
                      last edited by

                      The way it is currently setup is that we have 4 servers that all have 2000 private IPs added to them.  Then their are Outbound NAT rules to map the private to the public IP.  So with 4 servers we would have 4 private IPs mapped to each public IP.

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

                        Group like servers within subnet boundaries so you can include multiple servers with one subnet entry.

                        Define and use aliases for the source addresses.

                        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.