Accesspoint configuration



  • Hello all,

    Here is my conf

    public IP WAN --- WAN pfsense --- LAN pfsense (10.10.10.x)
    ALL my LAN is on a 10.10.10.x/24 network

    I want ot activate an accesspoint, this one must be on my LAN network.
    When I try to activate the accespoint , I configu a 10.10.10.x IP I have this error message :

    IPv4 address 10.0.0.xxx/24 (ip i configured for the AP) is being used by or overlaps with: LAN (10.0.0.xxx/24) (ip of the pfsense in LAN network).

    How can I go on with this error?

    Thanks in advance


  • Galactic Empire

    @jeje37 said in Accesspoint configuration:

    10.0.0.xxx/24

    You can't have 10.10.10.0/24 sitting on your WAN and LAN.

    Change the LAN interface to 10.10.11.x/24.



  • It's a Qotom Q335G4 appliance.
    Last version of pfsense

    wan port dhcp with public ip (ISP router in bridge mode)
    lan port : 10.10.10.254/24
    I want to set the Accesspoint with 10.10.10.250/24 , but have this error :
    "IPv4 address 10.0.0.250/24 is being used by or overlaps with: LAN (10.0.0.254/24)"


  • Galactic Empire

    Your using an inbuilt wifi adaptor ?



  • Yes, the chip is on the moteherboard (Atheros 9287)


  • Galactic Empire

    @jeje37 said in Accesspoint configuration:

    Yes, the chip is on the moteherboard (Atheros 9287)

    You need to bridge the LAN and Wi-Fi interfaces, they currently are two different segments.

    https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/interfaces/interface-bridges.html



  • Thx for that !
    I will check that, and open a new case if I need to configure the AP.

    Have a nice day !

    Resolved


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    @jeje37 said in Accesspoint configuration:

    Yes, the chip is on the moteherboard (Atheros 9287)

    You know it would be better to just get a cheap $20 wifi router and use that as AP on your lan, vs dealing with the minimal and lack luster support of wifi in freebsd/pfsense

    This also allows you not to have to deal with bridging if you just want wifi on your lan, etc. etc.

    Well worth the $20 spend for sure.



  • @johnpoz
    Yes I only want ot have Wifi on my LAN
    I already have an AP (linksys under openwrt) the goal was to limit hardware and have everything on the pfsense appliance.
    I am trying to set up the AP on pfsense but if it's too complicated, I'll keep tha acutal AP.


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    Unless your AP is some old G model, your speed via your actual AP is going to be better option for sure. freebsd has no support for AC that is for sure.

    Use of AP other then in your pfsense device also allows for better placement, so you get better coverage.

    Its almost always going to be a better option to use dedicated AP vs internal - almost ALWAYS!!!


  • Netgate Administrator

    @johnpoz said in Accesspoint configuration:

    Atheros 9287

    That should work OK in pfSense but yeah positioning issues will apply.

    This is old now but still applies:
    Youtube Video

    Steve



  • Gotta add, the best money I've spent in recent years was for some Ubiquiti access points. Moved all the household WiFi over to them and haven't looked back.

    The pfsense router has handled everything else. The only wrinkle is if you want all their admin features you need to run a java app somewhere. I have mine running on the same VM that handles pi-hole and other small networking features (ipp printing queues, etc). This frees up my pfsense (Q3554G) box to be a very reliable router and VPN server. Load never escapes single digits, and it's fanless with SSD drive... no moving parts at all.

    So before you bang your head against freebsd and wifi issues... seriously consider separate access points.


  • Netgate Administrator

    Yup. Though since the OP already has the card in their box they might as well set it up. They can always add a separate AP later.

    Steve



  • @stephenw10 I'd argue that's an example of chasing good (money/time) after bad. Just because it's there doesn't require using it. I can't tell you how many times in my 35+ years of wrangling with IT gear I've run into situations exactly like that. "It ought to work" versus "screw it, buy the RIGHT thing that's KNOWN to work from the get-go".


  • Netgate Administrator

    Yeah I won't argue there. If you want what would be considered 'good' wifi use external access point(s). I use Ubiquiti myself.

    I would still enable the card in the firewall though if only to test it. But I accept my usage is atypical! 😉

    Steve


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    If you have the wifi interface there, then guess it could be used as a backup wifi connection in a pinch.. Or it could be used as say a out of band connection to pfsense if say wired network went down, ie your switch died or lost power or something.

    Or guess it could be used as wan interface to some other wifi network as failover thing I guess.

    If I had one I would prob play with it as well ;) Pfsense/Netgate use to offer an option of adding wifi card when you ordered an appliance.. This is no longer the case is it? I would think that tells you something ;)

    If you want good wifi get an AP, if you want wifi that might work, that will be slow and have a shitty coverage area.. And just in general be PITA. Then yeah have fun with the internal wifi card in your pfsense box - just saying ;)



  • @johnpoz said in Accesspoint configuration:

    Pfsense/Netgate use to offer an option of adding wifi card when you ordered an appliance.. This is no longer the case is it? I would think that tells you something

    If you follow efforts like OpenWRT you start to learn just how crappy a lot of (most?) WiFi chipsets and their drivers truly are. It's a wonder that some of them work at all.

    At least with external WiFi gear you're getting the efforts of that product's vendor putting their efforts behind it, not just as noise lost between open source efforts and arrogant chipset makes that publish only black-box binaries.


  • Netgate Administrator

    Mmm, some maybe. A lot are using exactly same drivers OpenWRT uses. Some are just using OpenWRT directly!


Log in to reply