<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Multiple networks on the same VLAN]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Hello there!<br />
I am writing this even if I found old posts because maybe something's changed.</p>
<p dir="auto">TL;DR: pfSense on a VM, multiple virtual interfaces (each with a different network) connected to the same physical network. How bad is it gonna backfire?</p>
<p dir="auto">Context:<br />
Our infrastructure is on Hetzner (why this is important in a minute)<br />
Due to several reasons, we started migrating our physical firewalls into virtual machines (with a network refactoring, splitting a big /16 (logically partitioned) into multiple /24).<br />
The problem is that our provider (Hetzner) limits the number of VLANs to 5 (4 of which were already occupied, so we were left with 1).<br />
I already tried contacting the provider's support, and it looks like the limit is not increasable.</p>
<p dir="auto">What I did:<br />
After searching on the net, I did not find any satisfying answers on how to approach the issue, so I managed to add multiple virtual network interfaces to the pfSense VM (one per network).<br />
All the virtual interfaces are connected to the same VLAN in this case.<br />
I am gonna limit the IP of each VM via the Hypervisor firewall (to avoid spoofing on other networks) and we are not going to use DHCP.</p>
<p dir="auto">My question:<br />
How bad is this gonna backfire on us?<br />
Could there have been a better way to do this? Maybe directly in pfSense?<br />
From my research, I did not find any (new) posts or content on how to manage this.</p>
<p dir="auto">Thanks in advance!</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/171151/multiple-networks-on-the-same-vlan</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2026 10:39:39 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/171151.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2022 09:19:08 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Multiple networks on the same VLAN on Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:37:44 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/nogbadthebad">@<bdi>nogbadthebad</bdi></a> said in <a href="/post/1035053">Multiple networks on the same VLAN</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/interfaces/qinq.html</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Hi <a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/nogbadthebad">@<bdi>nogbadthebad</bdi></a>!<br />
Unfortunately, I tried looking into it before setting the whole thing up (with the idea of creating an "overlay" between the hypervisors), but I found <a href="https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/qinq-on-hetzner-vswitch.62071/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc">reports</a> of it not being possible on my hosting provider.<br />
To be honest, I did not try myself (also because I did not want issues with reduced MTU).<br />
I sent a ticket to the support, but I'm not feeling lucky about this</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/1035054</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/1035054</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[Pandry]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:37:44 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Multiple networks on the same VLAN on Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:29:39 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/pandry">@<bdi>pandry</bdi></a> Could you use QinQ / Stacked Vlans ?</p>
<p dir="auto">https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/interfaces/qinq.html</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/1035053</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/1035053</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[NogBadTheBad]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:29:39 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>