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

    Multi WAN and 1:1 NAT

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Routing and Multi WAN
    6 Posts 2 Posters 538 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.
    • L
      lales
      last edited by lales

      Hi Guys,

      Currently we have a x1 PFsense with Multi WAN and several Public IPs are NATed 1:1 for several Webservers for Public to Access. Since there's a single point of failure (Which is only one PFsense), we are looking to High Availability/Failover our Multi WAN along with it 1:1 NAT, is there any (if there are any) guides you can provide in doing so... I am familiar with Multi WAN failover but only for Outbound NAT (basically continuous Internet access for Internal clients), However we are looking if its possible to failover when you have an Inbound access from the public (which is the Client Facing Webservers).

      Appreciate your assistance and feedback to this topic.

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

        Sure.

        You generally need three WAN addresses. One for each node's interface and one for the CARP VIP. The CARP VIP swings between the primary and secondary nodes based on which one is the master.

        Additional IP addresses can ride on the CARP VIP and swing with it.

        So if the address being connected to from the outside then into 1:1 NAT is a CARP VIP or an address riding on a CARP VIP, it will be reachable on whatever node is active.

        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
        • L
          lales
          last edited by lales

          Hi @Derelict,

          Appreciate your response mate, quick points to ask though.
          So essentially, if we wanted this implementation to be successful or work, we needed more WAN IP addresses (Public IP)?
          As currently we have, ex. 3 ISP, each ISP provided us 5 Public IPs and these IP are already used for our 1:1 NAT/portforward..

          Thanks!

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

            You really want an address for each interface for management of the nodes plus as many addresses as you need for services provided that can swing between them.

            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)

            L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • L
              lales @Derelict
              last edited by lales

              @Derelict hmmm, so WAN Addresses would be my roadblock/issue then, as web services are already 1:1 NATed, and my ISP can no longer provide additional WAN Addresses (Public IP) :(

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

                Pretty much comes down to usable subnet addresses -3 so a /29 on the interface has 3 addresses usable for HA services, a /28 has 11, /27 27, etc.

                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
                • First post
                  Last post
                Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.