Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses
-
@landman16 said in Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses:
217.13.XX.207 (router/firewall)
Im with jknott, If they told you that was the router - then that block is not "routed" to you.. But they just attached them to your connection.
They would not tell you what the router is if they actually routed that .192/28 to you.. Since it would just be routed to your current IP. And then yeah you could put the /28 behind pfsense without any nat.
-
Zen are not even able to tell me how they are routing the IPs to me. This is half the battle if they could I wouldn’t be where I am now
-
@nogbadthebad said in Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses:
Is 217.13.XX.207 your WAN interface IP ?
We'd know exactly how to help if you answered the question I posted.
Is 217.13.XX.207 your WAN interface IP ?
"I have tried that server still now resolving" doesn't really mean a thing.
-
@landman16 said in Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses:
Zen are not even able to tell me how they are routing the IPs to me. This is half the battle if they could I wouldn’t be where I am now
Sorry but I find that very hard to believe, they are one of the better ISPs in the UK.
-
@nogbadthebad yes that is the WAN address
-
OK then you need to nat those addresses, but not 217.13.XX.207
217.13.XX.192/28 can't exist on your WAN and LAN interface.
Andy
1 x Netgate SG-4860 - 3 x Linksys LGS308P - 1 x Aruba InstantOn AP22
-
If .207 is your WAN, then that /28 is not "routed" to you... Your just attached to that network, yeah your going to have to NAT to use them as vips.
Have them ROUTE the /28 to you if you want to put it behind pfsense.
-
How would I go about doing that ?
-
Doing what? Routed call your ISP and tell them to route that /28 you via transit network..
1:1 nat just create those IPs as vips and do 1:1 nat..
https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/book/nat/1-1-nat.html -
https://www.netgate.com/resources/videos/nat-on-pfsense-23.html
-
@landman16 said in Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses:
Zen are not even able to tell me how they are routing the IPs to me. This is half the battle if they could I wouldn’t be where I am now
If they're just giving you a block of addresses, then use them that way. No need to route them. As I mentioned above, you just need a bridge/firewall, to pass the addresses to the servers. Take a computer, configure it with a static address from that list. If it works, that's all you need to do for each server. Also, if those servers run Linux, they will already have a good firewall built in. Just configure and you wouldn't even need pfSense, though an extra layer of protection is better.
PfSense running on Qotom mini PC
i5 CPU, 4 GB memory, 32 GB SSD & 4 Intel Gb Ethernet ports.
UniFi AC-Lite access pointI haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...
-
@nogbadthebad said in Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses:
OK then you need to nat those addresses, but not 217.13.XX.207
NO! NO! NO! NAT. He has a block of public addresses. If he has an address for a router, then set up pfSense as a router/firewall. If he doesn't then set up pfSense as a bridge/firewall. Which config he uses depends on what the ISP provides. My own ISP provides 2 IPv4 addresses, so I could directly connect 2 devices to my cable modem, if I choose. However, as I have more than 2 devices, I am forced to use NAT for IPv4.
I wish people would get out of the habit of thinking NAT is the way things are done. NAT is a hack, created to get around the IPv4 address shortage and, due to problems it causes, shouldn't be used when not needed. The OP has a block of 16 addresses, so NAT most definitely should not be used.
-
Call your ISP.
Tell them to give you a /29 on the WAN interface.
Tell them to route 217.13.XX.192/28 to your address on that.
If they want justification for the /29 tell them you need to run VRRP. (Even though it's not really possible on PPPoE. You might have to settle for something else there, like a static address. Try for the /29 anyway)
Put 217.13.XX.193/28 on an inside interface.
Make a NO NAT Hybrid outbound NAT rule for 217.13.XX.192/28
Put your servers on that inside interface. Give them addresses 217.13.XX.194 - 217.13.XX.207.
And you're done - and it's done correctly.
-
@jknott said in Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses:
The OP has a block of 16 addresses, so NAT most definitely should not be used.
Neither should any silly bridging.
-
@derelict I will give them a call in a bit and ask them to give me a /29 and see where I go from there. If they will issue a /29 Will that allow me to assign the servers behind pfsense the public IPs directly to the NIC cards on the physical servers?
-
It's what @Derelict said 2 posts up, you need to make it clear to Zen you want the /28 subnet routed via a /29 transit network.
Out of interest when you asked for additional IP addresses did you get an option of how you wanted them ?
-
@nogbadthebad They gave me no option on how I wanted them to be routed to me, but previously with my old supplier that I had 3 days ago. They issued them to me directly I would assume via a /29 transit network. As all I had to do is assign one to my router (at the start of the range (217.13.XX.193) and then all the public IPs between 217.13.XX.194 through to 217.13.XX.207 were signed directly to each nodes NIC cards this was the settings I gave the each Nodes NIC card
Node 1: -
Static IP: 217.13.XX.194
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.240
Gateway IP: 217.13.XX.193Node 2: -
Static IP: 217.13.XX.195
Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.240
Gateway IP: 217.13.XX.193So on, and so on...All the way to 217.13.XX.207 with the final IP 217.13.XX.208 being the broadcast address (unusable)
-
@nogbadthebad the issue is here is as before when I was with my old supplier they gave the IP's to me like this
217.13.XX.193 (router/firewall)
217.13.XX.194
217.13.XX.195
217.13.XX.196
217.13.XX.197
217.13.XX.198
217.13.XX.199
217.13.XX.200
217.13.XX.201
217.13.XX.202
217.13.XX.203
217.13.XX.204
217.13.XX.205
217.13.XX.206
217.13.XX.207
217.13.XX.208 (broadcast address)Now Zen Internet issue them to me like this
217.13.XX.193
217.13.XX.194
217.13.XX.195
217.13.XX.196
217.13.XX.197
217.13.XX.198
217.13.XX.199
217.13.XX.200
217.13.XX.201
217.13.XX.202
217.13.XX.203
217.13.XX.204
217.13.XX.205
217.13.XX.206
217.13.XX.207 (router/firewall)
217.13.XX.208 (broadcast address)So when the router is assigned 217.13.XX.207 automatically , its causing issues with my setup. When I try and tell the system it can use the other IP's available to me. It just returns an error basically saying they overlap with the WAN address.
-
@landman16 said in Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses:
So when the router is assigned 217.13.XX.207 automatically , its causing issues with my setup. When I try and tell the system it can use the other IP's available to me. It just returns an error basically saying they overlap with the WAN address.
That router address would be on the LAN side, not WAN. On the WAN side, you need an address that's outside of that block of addresses. This is why we've been asking about what you're being provided. If they expect you to use a router, then they need to provided an appropriate WAN address, which I haven't seen yet. If they're only providing those 16 addresses and no WAN address, then they're expecting you to use them as is, unusual but possible. In that case, you need to configure pfSense as a bridge. Please call your ISP's support and find out what they are providing and expecting you to provide. Until we know that, we're just guessing.
-
@nogbadthebad said in Issue with a block of 16 IPv4 addresses:
It's what @Derelict said 2 posts up, you need to make it clear to Zen you want the /28 subnet routed via a /29 transit network.
Out of interest when you asked for additional IP addresses did you get an option of how you wanted them ?
Looks like they have not routed the block of 16 IP's to me correctly, I have just phoned Zen and asked them if they can route my public subnet of 16 IP's via a /29 transit network. Maybe then I will get a WAN address that is outside of my allocated IP range, so I able then to use my public subnet without it erroring and saying "It cant do it as it overlaps the auto allocated WAN IP. Not sure if this will work, but its worth a go.
Thank you to everyone so far for your help, this has been a tricky one as Zen are/were sure it was my end. Im waiting on a call back. Will be back to update once they have come back to me with the verdict!
