pfSense and meraki z3
-
@JKnott said in pfSense and meraki z3:
@wyzard said in pfSense and meraki z3:
I agree with everyone that this should not be that hard. I my mind should be a simple plug and play.
As I mentioned, this appears to be a device intended to replace a consumer router/firewall, not be used behind it. That it works without pfSense shows this. Another thing you could try is put a consumer grade router/firewall ahead of it. If that works, then some investigation may reveal what the problem is.
I agree about it replacing a router/firewall. I don't want to send all my traffic through that though. Not that I have anything to hide, but according to the installation instructions that were sent home with my wife, this should plug into the existing router and work. And, as I said, her IT department is pretty much useless.
-
Yeah, where exactly did the 10.124.31.200 IP address come from?
That cannot be the Z3 WAN side since it is connecting out partly. It must, therefore, be it's LAN.
In which case, as johnpoz said, you need to find what IP address in your LAN subnet the Z3 is pulling and add that as the source address in the outbound NAT rule(s).
I'm pretty that static outbound NAT rule is all you need to make this work. It just has to be the right rule.
Steve
-
@stephenw10 said in pfSense and meraki z3:
It just has to be the right rule.
Or as you already stated just set all to static.. That would be a great test..
-
Thank you everyone for your help! Finally figured what the IP it was getting from my network. Entered a rule with the information and it's working!
Thanks again to everyone for the help and guidance.
-
Nice.
-
Would you mind sharing the rule you made? I seem to be having the same issue but with a Meraki MX68.
Thanks
-
It was a static source port outbound NAT rule specific to the source IP the Meraki was using.
It seems as though the Meraki VPN chokes if the source port changes.
Steve
-
@stephenw10 said in pfSense and meraki z3:
It seems as though the Meraki VPN chokes if the source port changes.
Which is just a horrible horrible design!!
Not sure which one ticks me off more, static source ports or hard coding IPs
-
Thanks, I got it with the above mentioned rules. Had to sift through states to find port #'s but once I added all of them to the alias I created for the rule, it was good to go.
-
Lets throw a 3rd one in to my list of pet peeves ;)
Game companies that are unable to correctly document the ports needed for their game to work.. They list ports, but don't say if its inbound or outbound, like 53 - that sure and the F is not needed inbound!! Same with 80... If that was required inbound most people wouldn't be able to play, since most home connections the isp blocks 80 inbound.
How hard would it be to list the ports required outbound, and inbound (port forward) and if any traffic requires static ports..
And a side to that - how about just actually leveraging IPv6 so all this nat shit goes away for your games where the users have IPv6.
-
Yup, and not restricted to games either. I can't tell the number of times I've seen a huge list of forwarded ports that have zero business being there.
Steve
-
I mean really, I create an app that talk to another app via port X.. How about listing these X ports - I mean really you wrote the freaking thing... Are you not using the same internet that everyone else on the planet is using where ports inbound are blocked via nat?
Its just freaking crazy - how F'king hard is that - I mean really!!! Its not like we using different shit here.. Your isp does really the same thing that isp Y does down the street.. Clearly list
Port forward
X
Y
ZOutbound
A
B
C..Is that asking that much??
-
I have one addition to instructions above.
First, thank you all for contributing to this forum. You guys helped me get my Meraki Z3 working with my Pfsense. Wanted to share some additional info, in the hopes it will save somebody else time. To make it work for the Meraki Z3 I got from my company. These servers are owned by my company and apparently we do something special - so just FYI.
Additonal outbound NAT rules for the Meraki to the following destinations:
- UDP to IP:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 50881
- UDP to IP:XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX port 48708
Tally ho!
-
@wyzard said in pfSense and meraki z3:
Thank you everyone for your help! Finally figured what the IP it was getting from my network. Entered a rule with the information and it's working!
Thanks again to everyone for the help and guidance.
Could you please screenshot and post exactly what all you opened to get it working including inbound and outbound? TIA
-
The only thing that was required was an outbound NAT rule for the devices internal IP with static source ports set.
Steve
-
@stephenw10 You're correct, thanks. I just had my port wrong. My port was 50716. I actually also found a few other ports in states, but only needed this one enabled after adding them all.
-
@crs162 I am struggling with this right now. Could you post your NAT rules?
-
It requires only an outbound NAT rule with static source ports set for connections from the z3.
That could be further limited to only the known destination IPs (if you know them) but it doesn't really matter since there won't be many connections from it.
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/nat/outbound.html#static-port
Steve
-
@beanska , or however is still looking for additional info regarding my previous post.
I have two rules, and use aliases to make them apply to ranges of hosts and ports. Replace any 192.168.0.253/32 mentions with your Meraki IP (the IP exposed to Pfsense).
First I made, "Cisco Meraki host alias". This alias contains the destination IP's listed to these ports 7351/9350/9351 that you can find on this page: https://documentation.meraki.com/General_Administration/Other_Topics/Upstream_Firewall_Rules_for_Cloud_Connectivity . Make another rule "Cisco Meraki port alias" with those three ports: 7351/9350/9351.
Rule 1: Cisco Meraki ports.
Interface: WAN
Address Family: IPv4+IPv6
Protocol: UDP
Source: Network, 192.168.0.253/32, <no ports defined/blank>
Destination: Network, "Cisco Meraki host alias", "Cisco Meraki port alias"The second rule will is specific for my company, if you need this, it will be different hosts and ports you need to use. These host addresses are publicly owned by my company and the ports used change every now and then. I've update the ports in this rule 3 times in 1 year. But how I find these ports and hosts is to do a packet capture from PFsense when I power on the Meraki and let it sit for a few minutes, before stopping the capture. Ensure your Meraki is the only device on Pfsense, and look for non response patterns in the log. Excerpt from my capture:
...
05:47:14.880183 IP 192.168.0.253.33621 > 10.214.21.30.40710: UDP, length 102
05:47:14.880188 IP 192.168.0.253.33621 > ###public IP 1###.40710: UDP, length 102
05:47:14.880233 IP 192.168.0.253.33621 > 10.215.136.10.50881: UDP, length 101
05:47:14.880348 IP 192.168.0.253.33621 > ###public IP 2###.50881: UDP, length 101
...So, that shows we are not getting a reply from requests to these servers (on those ports). That is suspicious. So, I made a rule to allow this. Create aliases for those ports and addresses and create rule 2:
Rule 1: My Company Meraki rule
Interface: WAN
Address Family: IPv4+IPv6
Protocol: UDP
Source: Network, 192.168.0.253/32, <no ports define/blank>
Destination: Network, "My Company Meraki host alias", "My Company Meraki port alias"This is what has worked for me for a while.
-
Those are static port outbound NAT rules?
They look more like firewall rules but those could never match any traffic on WAN.
Steve
