PfSense 2.3 on Esxi 6.0 U2 - Problems when 4th NIC added.
-
Hello all,
I've deployed pfSense 2.3 in our office, this is running on a VM hosted by Esxi 6.0 U2.
The server has a 4 port NIC, each NIC is assigned to a virtual switch as seen below:
The pfSense VM currently has 3x NICS - WAN, LAN and Wireless.
-
The pfSense WAN NIC is assigned to the WAN switch which is physically connected to our modem
-
The pfSense LAN NIC is assigned to the LAN switch which is physically connected to our office network
-
The pfSense Wireless NIC is assigned to the Wireless switch, which is physically connected to our wireless access points
As it stands this setup works fine.
I'm now wanting to add another NIC to the pfSense VM, I have done this (shutdown the pfSense VM, added the nic, powered on again) and connected the new NIC to the "Secure" virtual switch.
The problem I have when doing this is that pfSense will then no longer obtain an IP address from our ISP, as it's booting it will stick on "configuring WAN interface…" for a minute or so, then continue to boot up. However once booted up pfSense also becomes inaccessible from the LAN network. All I can do is connect to Esxi and look at the pfSense console, to which I can see the WAN interface has not obtained an IP from our ISP.
I'm not really sure what i'm doing wrong, i started out with just the WAN and LAN NIC's, which worked fine, I then added the Wireless NIC, which again worked fine. Now i'm essentially doing the same again as i did with the wireless NIC, however as soon as I add the Secure NIC nothing works until i remove the Secure NIC and reboot pfSense.
When I do that everything works as normal.
I notice Hyper-V appears to have some problems with 4x NIC's looking at the other thread here, so i'm not sure if this is related.
-
-
ESX will change the order it presents the interfaces to the guest when you add one in some circumstances. Make note of the MACs of each shown in ESX, check via ifconfig once the guest is booted up, and re-assign accordingly.
-
Apologies I thought I had replied to this thread to thank you. I just wanted to confirm this was the issue for anyone else who might find this thread via searching in the future.