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

    pfSense PVLAN on LACP trunk from Cisco 3172T NX-OS

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved L2/Switching/VLANs
    5 Posts 2 Posters 851 Views
    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.
    • M
      michael.mcatee
      last edited by

      I am investigating if I can use PVLANs on networks backed by my pfSense Netgate hardware. I have a pair of Cisco 3172T NX-OS switches that can be configured with PVLANs. My existing PVLANs use a Cisco ASA, which is aware of PVLANs and can have a "Secondary" VLAN added to a virtual interface to do the translation from an Isolated or Community VLAN to the Primary VLAN ID. I haven to found that pfSense has this ability, but wanted to see if anyone else was aware of how this might work. The switch pair is connected to an HA pair of pfSense boxes via two virtual port-channels and all VLANs are trunked on this port-channel.

      Any thoughts?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DerelictD
        Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
        last edited by Derelict

        No. pfSense is not Private VLAN-aware.

        It can certainly be placed on a private VLAN port like any other router but it does not understand the concept of private VLANs as described here:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_VLAN

        if pfSense receives the traffic tagged with a dot1q tag it will behave appropriately.

        Segregating Private VLANs is a job for your layer 2 gear.

        Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
        A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
        DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
        Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M
          michael.mcatee
          last edited by

          Yep I understand the purpose and where PVLANs should exist. My problem is that I am trunking many VLANs to pfSense, which means I cannot place it on a promiscuous port, but only also send the primary VLAN ID across the trunk. I am looking into a Cisco feature that would translate PVLAN secondary IDs to the primary ID across the trunk, but I am not confident it is supported with my switch model.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • DerelictD
            Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
            last edited by Derelict

            pfSense speaks 802.1q. If you need different VLANs to be recognized, the switch needs to dot1q tag them.

            In general, when you use Private VLANs, EVERY DEVICE that speaks tagged traffic needs to understand Private VLANs. Else you lose the effect of Private VLANs.

            It's pretty easy to do on one switch. Multiple switches/devices especially across multiple vendors, not so much.

            Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
            A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
            DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
            Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              michael.mcatee
              last edited by

              The PVLANs are tagged, but as you said, the issue is multiple devices and trunking in play here. Using the HA pair, two switches and the 10Gbps trunk means I either need pfSense to understand PVLANs or the Cisco switch to do the work for it. I am opening a ticket with Cisco to see if this model can do what is needed. Thanks for the response.

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