Guest VLAN isolated from Management LAN: rules to keep Internet access?
-
So you don't want this vlan 99 to access any of your other networks? Which I assume are all rfc1918 space.. Do want this vlan to be able to access anything on pfsense at all?
You rules could be done in 2 rules - Derelict doesn't like to do it this way… ;) But it is another way to skin the cat...
So leave your redirect rule there.. But vs doing an any any rule, you can get rid of all of those block rules and change your any any rule to a ! (not) rfc1918 rule..
Create an alias, put in 10/8, 192.168/16, 172.16/12 this makes up the rfrc1918 space which all your other vlans are on.. Then on your any any rule just make it ! rfc1918 alias.. So if dest is anything rfc1918 from this vlan it would not be allowed and blocked by the default rule. If ie a public IP address then it would be allowed..
-
Reject to dest rfc1918 then pass any. :)
-
Yup that works too - see lots of ways to skin the cat ;)
-
Only one right way though. :)
-
heheheeh - ROFL…. The Derelict way ;) heheheeh
What if combine your reject to rfc above my ! rfc allow rule? Would that be ok? ;)
-
Not trying to stir the pot but thanks Johnpoz and Derelict for the options but what is the real difference?
is the thinking that "! RFC1918" is potentially "leakable"? Is there a way to quantify the difference? When would one use the "!"?
-
I think awhile back there was some sort of issue with the not rules.. But as always you should always validate any sort of rules you put in place are actually working the way you believe they should work, etc.
Derelict method of actual bock makes the rules more clear cut and obvious to yes no function. I believe he is of the mind set you do not block with an allow statement - but I do not see it that way. Not blocking anything with that rule, the default block is what blocks. I am just being more restrictive on my allow.
We have over the years gone round a few times on this - we agree to disagree if you will ;) I do see his point clear blocks in your rules, and am a fan of that.. I don't see anything wrong with doing it that way. But I am also a fan of min amount of rules to accomplish the goal..
Derelict please chime in on your take on it.. It has been a while since we have discussed this ;) heheheh
I don't see it right/wrong way, just a different way to skin the same cat is all. If you had a bunch of networks to block your rules list could get quite long… Sure you could put your networks into a alias.. You really need to understand the specifics of setup, ie the breed of the cat if you will to know which way to skin might be the best option.
If your a fan or watch silicon valley... Its like tabs vs spaces ;)
-
If you want to block traffic, block it. Don't rely on pass rules to block traffic. Particularly pass ! rules.
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/6799
-
See that where are difference is… That rule is not blocking anything.. Its just a specific allow vs any.. The block is default block.. Your against specific allow rules? ;)
Agree to disagree as said ;)
That redmine entry should never happen to be honest, because that sort of setup is just full blown borked of running multiple layer 3 on the same layer 2.... As I stated you should always validate your rules are working as expected..
So you see no use for the ! at all in a destination? Or source - you don't think it should be an option at all?
-
The default pfBlocker DNSBL config creates that scenario.
I am not against specific pass rules to pass traffic that is to be passed allowing fall-through to the default deny.
I am against using a pass rule to ! something expecting it to function as a block rule for something.
If you want to block it, block it with a block rule.
-
Which is borked ;) If he wants to listen on a address - then create a vip in the network.. Not some 10.10.10 address or whatever it uses out of the box..
-
I agree. That vip should be on localhost.
