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

    Blocking RFC 1918 traffic not working

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    11 Posts 5 Posters 1.3k 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.
    • T
      thingsmg
      last edited by

      Hi to y'all

      This is my first time I post something on forums, so bare with me.

      I've been dealing with an issue kind of a headache for the last two days, I'm not able to block rfc 1918 on a specific subnet, just to let you know I have a pfsense 2.4.2-RELEASE-p1 version, and also have a four port nic card, one port for wan, one for lan (192.168.100.1/24), one for guest wifi clients (192.168.200.1/24) and the last port is not use at the moment, I've also installed squid proxy and squidguard to implement a transparent proxy on the wifi client interface to prevent clients reach porn sites and other stuff, and is working fine and also I've enabled dns resolver listening on all interface and last but not least, all clients on the wifi interface are going out through a vpn client, which is also working great.

      So, what I'm trying to accomplish on the guest wifi interface (and I don't know right now if it even possible) is to have a internet only network, I don't want clients to see each other but the internet, right now I perfectly get the clients reach the internet through the vpn gateway and I've manage to block traffic from 192.168.200.x(wifi) to 192.168.100.x(lan).  But I can't block clients to see each other on the wifi interface, for example I do not want them to see the wireless access point which have an IP address of 192.168.200.2, but they do! I have a camera connected to the same interface with IP 192.168.200.101 and also any client can see the camera; how can I prevent clients to see each other?

      Thank you so much in advance, for taking the time to help me solve this, I really appreciate.

      Ps: I attach some print screen for you to have a view of the rules I have on the interface.

      rules.png
      rules.png_thumb
      proxy.png
      proxy.png_thumb

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

        You cannot use a layer 3 device (life pfSense) to isolate layer 2 clients from each other. That has to be done in your switching or wireless infrastructure.

        Client-to-client traffic occurs on the same subnet. The firewall is not involved at all.

        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
        • T
          thingsmg
          last edited by

          Thanks for your reply, I thought that wasn't possible on pfsense.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • H
            Harvy66
            last edited by

            @thingsmg:

            Thanks for your reply, I thought that wasn't possible on pfsense.

            It's not possible on anything other than the switch/AP. You should never have two subnets in the same broadcast domain.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • JKnottJ
              JKnott
              last edited by

              You should never have two subnets in the same broadcast domain.

              Possible but not common on IPv4.  Entirely normal and supported on IPv6.

              PfSense running on Qotom mini PC
              i5 CPU, 4 GB memory, 32 GB SSD & 4 Intel Gb Ethernet ports.
              UniFi AC-Lite access point

              I haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...

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

                None of which is relevant to OP's problem. The subnets are on separate NICs as they should be.

                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
                • T
                  thingsmg
                  last edited by

                  Thank y'all guys more than clear that it is not possible to do it, I'm still open if there's any idea on how to do it. Thanx.

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

                    Do it in your wireless and switching (Layer 2) infrastructure.

                    Google wireless client isolation and switch port isolation. Look at your AP docs. Open a ticket with them.

                    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
                    • johnpozJ
                      johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                      last edited by

                      "Entirely normal and supported on IPv6."

                      No it is NOT…. You do not route traffic between a link local and or globals on the same L2...

                      What part of this do you not understand??  You do not put 2 different global ipv6 prefixes on the same L2 and route between them.

                      Having a link local and global address or even a ULA on the same L2 is not the same thing..

                      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 2.7.2, 24.11

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • JKnottJ
                        JKnott
                        last edited by

                        Hi Jon

                        You seem to be stuck on IPv4 to the point you don't know how things are on IPv6.  One example was our recent discussion about IPv6 transit networks, where you didn't seem to know IPv6 routing is done over link local addresses, not global or even local (ULA) addresses.  IPv6 was designed to allow things that were never considered or unlikely to be done on IPv4.  For example, it is understood that multiple prefixes on an Interface are normal.  They could be global or local  They're allowed and pfSense happily provides them.  It's also possible to have multiple default gateways on a network, with priority set according to what's supposed to be the primary vs fall back.  You might also have multiple gateways that provide specific routes to some destinations.  All this and more is part of IPv6.  One example I've read about for having global and local addresses on an interface is so that IoT, on the local prefix could be used, while also having global addresses for the Internet.  You might want to read a book, such as IPv6 Essentials, from O'Reilly to learn more.  I've read that and other books on IPv6.  I'm currently reading IPv6 Fundamentals: A Straightforward Approach to Understanding IPv6, from Cisco.  In those books you'll find these things and more were intended when IPv6 was designed.  IPv6 is about much more than just a larger address space.

                        PfSense running on Qotom mini PC
                        i5 CPU, 4 GB memory, 32 GB SSD & 4 Intel Gb Ethernet ports.
                        UniFi AC-Lite access point

                        I haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • H
                          Harvy66
                          last edited by

                          @thingsmg:

                          Thank y'all guys more than clear that it is not possible to do it, I'm still open if there's any idea on how to do it. Thanx.

                          Not possible via pfSense or any other firewall unless it somehow integrates into your switch/AP. There are APs or switches that can support some forms of client isolation within a broadcast domain. I've never used one, but I know they exist.

                          @Derelict:

                          None of which is relevant to OP's problem. The subnets are on separate NICs as they should be.

                          I totally misread the second paragraph. I saw his current setup was seperate interfaces, but I thought they were trying to combine them.

                          @JKnott:

                          Hi Jon

                          … IPv6 was designed to allow things that were never considered or unlikely to be done on IPv4.  ...

                          Having multiple subnets in the same broadcast domain has nothing to do with IPv4 vs IPv6. IPv6 may make certain aspects of it better or take advantage of certain aspects, but many of the downsides are exactly the same due to fundamental issues that are orthogonal to the Layer 3 protocol.

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