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

    Multicast

    NAT
    5
    34
    7.0k
    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.
    • H
      hsv
      last edited by

      Hi
      I have 4 WAN interface and one LAN
      On the LAN side I have a devise which use multicast as it is a lodbalancer.
      I am not ready to switch it to haproxy
      When I try to ping from the Lan default gateway 192.168.0.1 to the host with multicast 192.168.0.10 it do not reply.
      From the out side I have 4 NAT rules to direct the trafic to 192.168.0.10
      When I look in the arp list it says it is Incomplete
      So how do I enable Pfsense to work with multicast.
      I have look at the documentation for IGMP but didnot understand it.

      Regards
      Henning

      DaddyGoD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DaddyGoD
        DaddyGo @hsv
        last edited by DaddyGo

        @hsv said in Multicast:

        So how do I enable Pfsense to work with multicast.

        Hi,

        Multicast on the same subnet is more a matter of Layer 2 switch + IGMP snooping cabability...

        in case you want multicast traffic between network segments
        then we can talk about pfSense IGMP proxy

        @hsv "When I try to ping from the Lan default gateway 192.168.0.1 to the host with multicast 192.168.0.10 it do not reply.."

        if it's a windows machine (192.168.0.10) then use this:

        netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name="ICMP Allow incoming V4 echo request" protocol=icmpv4:8,any dir=in action=allow

        Cats bury it so they can't see it!
        (You know what I mean if you have a cat)

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

          ICMP is enabled so I can ping it from other servers in the subnet.
          So the problem is that Pfsense do not like multicast.

          DaddyGoD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • L
            louis2
            last edited by louis2

            I have the same problem. Multicast not working correctly. Not with IGMP-proxy (not at all) and not with PIMD (it works a bit).

            Never the less I would advice the more capable recently introduced PIMD-package. It works "a bit", problem is that it does not recognise all of my vlan-interfaces.

            But your config is of cause different, so may be ..... it works for you 😊

            For info on my system pimd is refusing a lot of vlan interfaces with the following message "Invalid phyint address '<technical interface name>'. I did raise a bugreport for that.

            I hope you are more sucessfull. Let me/us know.

            Louis
            PS of cause the fw-settings sould allow the resulting unicast traffic.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DaddyGoD
              DaddyGo @hsv
              last edited by DaddyGo

              @hsv said in Multicast:

              So the problem is that Pfsense do not like multicast.

              I understand...😉

              We configure multicast traffic on the switches for example for AoIP purposes (IGMP snooping thus, traffic on the same subnet does not need to reach the router).

              f.e.:

              d1e62b8d-b739-4d53-a2f7-020d26c8c021-image.png

              or

              b1194446-b04f-4766-85f0-84b071126a88-image.png

              or

              87a816ff-2b30-41c4-8253-a779a52a8c66-image.png

              BTW:
              Exactly what multicast routing function you want to implement?

              Cats bury it so they can't see it!
              (You know what I mean if you have a cat)

              L n3xus_x3N 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • L
                louis2 @DaddyGo
                last edited by louis2

                @DaddyGo

                To answer that first a rough outline of my network

                • I have two "core switches" one for 1G one for "10G" each carrying multiple vlans
                • in the center pfSense as router and firewall
                • in the rooms small (5/ 8 -port) Netgear managed switches
                • the network is divided in “security-zones” implemented with vlans

                In the RedZone my server, among other things hosting my (twonky)media-server. In the PC-zone, Guest-zone, and IoT-zone equipment like Hifi-receivers and media-players.

                PIMD should use the IGMP-messages to build routing tables and to forward the multicast broadcast / response messages. If that is successful the Twonky and the “media-devices” know each other. And of course the result is unicast info and data (stream) exchange, which should be allowed by the FW-rules (and if applicable NAT-rules).

                That is it 😊

                Additional, but necessary in a small network, the switches should be configured for IGMP-snooping, to prevent lots of unnecessary messages.

                That is of cause that is my situation, I do not know what @hsv wants to accomplish

                Louis

                DaddyGoD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • DaddyGoD
                  DaddyGo @louis2
                  last edited by DaddyGo

                  @louis2 said in Multicast:
                  @louis2 "To answer that first a rough outline of my network"

                  nice system, but it's just in your house😉

                  Additional, but necessary in a small network,

                  this Cisco installment makes up only 2-3% of our system...
                  At 18 radiostations, we serve nearly 300 colleagues in the AoIP system with the appropriate audio materials and broadcast the FM-UHF program from 24 telekom towers, within a radius of 350 km
                  (the entire system includes 44 voice VLANs, connected by 47 Cisco switches and 8 Brocade switches over fiber and Cat6, this is no small system)
                  DANTE protocol (https://www.audinate.com/) 😉

                  we never route the multicast traffic, only the core-switches the IGMP querier(s) in the system and control everything

                  BTW:
                  our own backbone network is 2x40G 2420Km fiber with IEEE 1588 Precision Time Protocol (PTP) across the network

                  I've been crying a lot about multicast, since the system latency can't be more than 1-2ms everywhere
                  (routers raise this value to the skies)

                  +++edit:
                  I work with these multicast addresses / ports..

                  05fa23ab-0a3e-41d0-bc4e-ad6730feb7d7-image.png

                  d459aedf-df13-4d44-b5b7-8f95cf7e1abd-image.png

                  Cats bury it so they can't see it!
                  (You know what I mean if you have a cat)

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • L
                    louis2
                    last edited by

                    If multicast is in and stays(!) in a dedicated vlan, it is not necessary to send it through a router. And I agree completely, you should not do that because of the added latency.

                    However, if the multicast source is in a different vlan as the multicast receiver/destination, than you need to route that. And that will probably be at the users premises and not in the telecom network. 😊

                    Note that my provider is sending the TV-streams in a different vlan than the internet, and that the set-top-box is supposed to be connected to that tv-vlan.

                    Louis

                    DaddyGoD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • DaddyGoD
                      DaddyGo @louis2
                      last edited by

                      @louis2 said in Multicast:

                      TV-streams

                      in this case you have to route the traffic

                      Cats bury it so they can't see it!
                      (You know what I mean if you have a cat)

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

                        @louis2 said in Multicast:

                        Note that my provider is sending the TV-streams in a different vlan than the internet, and that the set-top-box is supposed to be connected to that tv-vlan.

                        The way I take that... Is you should split that traffic at layer 2 when it comes in. So your STB would not be behind the layer 3 device..

                        Now keep in mind only half way through my first cup of coffee but would you do something like this..

                        Where you split the L2 networks before pfsense.

                        setup.png

                        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
                        • L
                          louis2
                          last edited by

                          John,

                          I think the same with one small difference, being that the Ls2-switch is inside the ISP-device.

                          Not 100% sure, because I have internet and telephone from the ISP and television from the Cable.

                          Louis

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • L
                            louis2
                            last edited by

                            To be even more precise, I have the lan-connection(s) from the ISP-device connected to my 1G-coreswitch. At the entrance port of that switch the lan is transformated to a vlan (PID=internet-vlan-no).

                            The Internet VLAN is entering pfSense, the TV-vlan (if present), is passing pfSense / stays level2.

                            Louis

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

                              @louis2 said in Multicast:

                              is passing pfSense / stays level2.

                              Doesn't work that way, pfsense is a layer 3 device. Pfsense is not going to pass on vlan tags.. Nor layer 2 traffic..

                              Sniffing on pfsense is seeing the vlan traffic.. Then put switch in front of pfsense to send the STB vlan to the devices that are suppose to be on that vlan..

                              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

                              L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • H
                                hsv
                                last edited by hsv

                                My problem is that it is mail traffic that's coming in and goes to a loadbalancer (MS) this loadbalancer use multicast.
                                So the router need to communicate to this multicast unit.

                                I have tried to look into HAProxy, whit absolut not succes. The documentation I have found do not help me at all.

                                So if som body can point med to a HAproxy description, where you have one front ip number with multiple Ports to 2 or more servers in the backend that could help, as I cannot see pfsense handle this multicast problem.

                                Regards
                                Henning

                                L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • L
                                  louis2 @johnpoz
                                  last edited by louis2

                                  @johnpoz

                                  John, I know. The description of my network was over simplified. pfSense is not really in the middle of the 1G and 10G core switches.

                                  I have a 1G-network towards most rooms and towards the ISP-device. That network is handled by the 1G-core. And I have a 10G network which connects my server, my nas and my main-PC.

                                  Both (physical) networks are connected to pfSense for routing between the VLANs independent from the fact if they are located in the 1G or in the 10G domain.

                                  pfSense is connected to the 1G-switch via a 1G-lagg and connected to the 10G-switch via a 10G-up and a 10G-down link. However there is also a direct (physical) connection between those two switches.

                                  To take the TV-VLAN as example, is a vlan starting at the ISP-device, passing the 1G-core ending on one of the small Netgear switches in the living room.

                                  Louis

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • L
                                    louis2 @hsv
                                    last edited by

                                    @hsv

                                    I am not an expert related to loadballancers etc, so wait for the reaction form @johnpoz etc, but to me it sounds strange that the devices like that are based on multicast.

                                    I would expect to see some routing protocol there.

                                    Louis

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

                                      Ok that makes sense.

                                      To be honest I have no idea what @hsv is talking about.. Load balancer that uses multicast??

                                      For example

                                      host with multicast 192.168.0.10 it do not reply.

                                      That is NOT a multicast address.. So I have a funny suspicion there is some misuse of terms going on.

                                      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

                                      DaddyGoD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • DaddyGoD
                                        DaddyGo @johnpoz
                                        last edited by DaddyGo

                                        @johnpoz said in Multicast:

                                        To be honest I have no idea what @hsv is talking about.. Load balancer that uses multicast??

                                        from the beginning I have the same feeling John 😉

                                        192.168.0.10 RFC1918

                                        this has nothing to do with multicast

                                        +++edit:

                                        for @hsv :
                                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast_address

                                        Cats bury it so they can't see it!
                                        (You know what I mean if you have a cat)

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

                                          Maybe if he sends some traffic to this device at 192.168.0.10, it multicasts the traffic that is sends on?

                                          @hsv really going to need a bit more info.. What is this device, or what software are you running on 192.168.0.10.. What sort of traffic is it?

                                          If you can not arp from pfsense, for this 192.168.0.10 address - then no your never going to be able to send it traffic.. To do anything with..

                                          From the out side I have 4 NAT rules to direct the trafic to 192.168.0.10

                                          Can you post those, so we can maybe glean some insight into what your trying to do exactly.

                                          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
                                          • DaddyGoD
                                            DaddyGo
                                            last edited by

                                            @hsv said in Multicast:

                                            loadbalancer (MS)

                                            it could be something like that if we go after it better:

                                            https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/networking/technologies/network-load-balancing

                                            73d9b899-2ed2-4e76-bdca-7c466be69cfb-image.png

                                            e6cc0fa2-20dd-4a70-9fc1-4ccc2ff74669-image.png

                                            Cats bury it so they can't see it!
                                            (You know what I mean if you have a cat)

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