Problem accessing internal webservers via external addresses



  • Surprising! I actually thought you'd say that using several pfSense VM's like that was to messy. ;)

    Because the internal on one subnet is on the inside of a Windows server, and I have no idea how to route a Windows server setup outwards (from 192.168.0.x internal LAN to 192.168.1.x external (pfSense) LAN. I believe A hosts on Windows can only go to the internal LAN.

    And the other subnet (for the main rental appartment) is split from my external LAN, on 10.0.0.x and on a regular cheap ass Belkkin wifi router, and I'm pretty sure that has no ability to route on WAN either.

    Or is there a way to route it on the pfSense physical box (subnets 192.168.1.1/10.0.0.1) without using HA proxy?


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    It is... And no point to it... Just give your software the nics..

    BTW your interface that is your interface - its HORRIBLE. Looks like there should be a dancing baby somewhere a loader.

    Or is there a way to route it on the pfSense physical box (subnets 192.168.1.1/10.0.0.1) without using HA proxy?

    Do you mean route or proxy.. Routing has no clue to www.domain.com something.. To be honest if this software your using has to use port xyz, and can not have multiple IPs and you don't want to use port xyz in your url.. Then use something else..

    Why can you not take the horrible looking web page interface and hide the :port part of the url behind it? To honest I am done with this sort of discussion. Your going down a even more complex rabbit whole for no reason.. It hurts my brain having to discuss it even.. Why do you need all fhese other pfsense VMS exactly?? Because you don't know how to give your windows machine more IPs? What? Your software can not listen on more than 1 IP for a function?

    All of this nonsense so you user doesn't have to use :port in their url - but its ok that they have to use 4 different domains? Just hide all of that from the user by sending them to some web site at www.whatever.com All of the urls that actually do anything can be hidden from the user.



  • Do you really have to be so bloody difficult? I don't give a f... about the nomenclature, when I say routing I just mean that it sends the browser to the correct place. And you are really, really, really not listening, are you? Two subnets, different clients every week in the summer, I don't give a f... how complex it is on the inside as long as it's easy to use for the end user. And if you had paid attention at all you'd know that the users only have one domain they need to worry about. There are three different automation zones in the house, and one user will only be in one of the zones. I have mentioned the Airbnb rental before. Also they only need to know the first, because they will always get to the same page (the most used page with audio/video switching) first, and then they can get to the heating/cooling system with the links in the upper left corner, and that's where the second webserver for that zone comes in.

    Oh, and the interface is perfect, actually. It takes me no time at all to explain how new renters (of which I usually have 8 families every summer, for the 8 weeks I rent that part of the house out to tourists) has to use it to get the radio channels they want to listen to, or to switch to TV or Blu-ray or Bluetooth streaming. Fancy web design is just messing up things, on the user side I want it as simple and basic as possible. I actually tried out text links versus this interface on a small, techno disabled focus group (mainly my parents and ten of their friends), but they found this interface much easier to understand.

    But never mind, I'll just try to google the rest.



  • OK, sorry. I should probably be a bit more polite. After all you are an older guy. While I'm a young buck at 52! 😝


Log in to reply