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

    RFC 1918 Traffic leaving the WAN interface

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    42 Posts 5 Posters 3.2k 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.
    • IsaacFLI
      IsaacFL @IsaacFL
      last edited by

      What I have done in the mean time, is disabled my static route to null, since I am being advised against that.

      I have created an alias "Private_Networks" with values of "192.168.0.0/16, 172.16.0.0/12, 10.0.0.0/8, fc00::/7 " (I added ipv6 ULAs too).

      I then created a Floating Rule to reject the Private Networks Out of the WAN

      Annotation 2020-01-12 195941.png

      This is working, but for logging it is not so great as the source address is always my WAN ipv4 address..

      johnpozJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • chpalmerC
        chpalmer @JKnott
        last edited by chpalmer

        @JKnott said in RFC 1918 Traffic leaving the WAN interface:

        How would a device know an address wasn't used by you somewhere? The only thing it can do is tell the address is not on it's local LAN and has to be sent to the router.

        Right. to a point. The only thing it can do is tell the address is not on it's local LAN and has to be sent to the router.

        Anything else should be outside of RFC 1918! Period. No reason to do otherwise unless directed by you. Nothing in RFC 1918 should be hard coded.

        Change my mind.

        Triggering snowflakes one by one..
        Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box.

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

          @IsaacFL said in RFC 1918 Traffic leaving the WAN interface:

          This is working, but for logging

          Thats why you do it on the lan side interface.. Also not sure what good rejecting on the outbound direction does?

          Nothing in RFC 1918 should be hard coded.

          Nothing in public space should be hard coded either.. You need to get to something you should look it up via its fqdn

          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

          IsaacFLI 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • IsaacFLI
            IsaacFL @johnpoz
            last edited by

            @johnpoz said in RFC 1918 Traffic leaving the WAN interface:

            Thats why you do it on the lan side interface.. Also not sure what good rejecting on the outbound direction does?

            If I put it on the LAN interface then it also blocks access to the other subnets since I am using RFC1918 addresses as my local IPv4 addresses.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • IsaacFLI
              IsaacFL @johnpoz
              last edited by

              @johnpoz I did put a reject rule on the subnet with the iphones, etc. So the WAN rule is there in case another subnet acts up.

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

                @IsaacFL said in RFC 1918 Traffic leaving the WAN interface:

                If I put it on the LAN interface then it also blocks access to the other subnets since I am using RFC1918 addresses as my local IPv4 addresses.

                How many times do we have to go over the same thing? What exactly do you not understand about how rules are processed? Top down, first rule to trigger wins, no other rules are evaluated..

                Allow what traffic you want to your other vlans, then block to all rfc1918, allow to internet.. You have even been given examples..

                edit: Here is yet another example... So I created an alias with my Local networks in it... I have an alias that has all of rfc1918 space int it... I allow to my local nets, then block to any rfc1918, then allow internet

                anotherexample.jpg

                Now anything going to my local networks from lan is allowed, anything going somewhere some odd ball rfc1918 is blocked and logged.

                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

                IsaacFLI 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • IsaacFLI
                  IsaacFL @johnpoz
                  last edited by

                  @johnpoz Ok, I think I got it now. My only issue was I want to log the local traffic, but not external traffic.

                  So for my LAN which is allowed local traffic:
                  Annotation 2020-01-13 135342.png

                  The LAN net to LAN net was so that I don't log the broadcast, etc.

                  On my IOT interface which is restricted to external:
                  Annotation 2020-01-13 222222.png

                  This seems to be working and is logging what I want.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • chpalmerC
                    chpalmer
                    last edited by

                    What have you done to get multicast to work? Or is it?

                    Triggering snowflakes one by one..
                    Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box.

                    IsaacFLI 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • IsaacFLI
                      IsaacFL @chpalmer
                      last edited by

                      @chpalmer said in RFC 1918 Traffic leaving the WAN interface:

                      What have you done to get multicast to work? Or is it?

                      The multicast rule is because I have enabled Avahi for mDNS. mDNS uses multicast and this rule allows ipv6 multicast into the router so Avahi works.

                      There isn't a default rule to allow traffic from ipv6 link local to multicast and without this rule only ipv4 mDNS works.

                      I wrote a general rule that works for both ipv4 and ipv6 in case I want to log it. My Multicast Alias is ff00::/8, 224.0.0.0/4

                      But generally multicast between subnets does not work, as pfSense does not have a module to route it to the other subnets. At least that I know of.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • chpalmerC
                        chpalmer
                        last edited by

                        This is why I asked.. https://forum.netgate.com/topic/139218/sonos-speakers-and-applications-on-different-subnets-vlan-s

                        Triggering snowflakes one by one..
                        Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box.

                        IsaacFLI 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • IsaacFLI
                          IsaacFL @chpalmer
                          last edited by

                          Yeah, this is the package which would maybe work. I have never tried to install it so I group all of these type of devices in one subnet.

                          I mostly have been working on ipv6 and I can say I am not sure that even with that package it would work across subnets at least for ios devices.

                          I have noticed that ios devices, instead of advertising their ipv6 global address, they advertise their link local address only via mDNS. So even if you had the pimd package installed, I don't think it would work, since link local addresses can't cross subnets.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • IsaacFLI
                            IsaacFL @chpalmer
                            last edited by

                            @chpalmer I haven't tried this myself, but supposedly this will allow Sonos devices to work.

                            https://github.com/sonicsnes/udp-broadcast-relay-redux

                            In the usage-notes, it explains how to use with pfsense.

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