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

    LAN routing to VLANS

    Routing and Multi WAN
    4
    29
    973
    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
      michmoor LAYER 8 Rebel Alliance @viragomann
      last edited by

      @viragomann OP can chime in on that. I took it as the switch had a default route to the PFsense but the PFsense would need to know where to route to those 10nets on the way back.

      Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
      Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
      Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
      Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
      JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise

      V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • V
        viragomann @michmoor
        last edited by

        @michmoor
        Ah yes, you're absolutely right. The route is needed pointing to the switch, of course.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • M
          Malicair @viragomann
          last edited by

          @viragomann @michmoor
          Hey guys, appreciate you both stepping in to help me.
          Viragomann, sorry for not catching before the NAT outbound you suggested.

          Yes, the EX435 Switch and other equipment behind it worked perfectly before with the ASUS providing the routing between the WAN and the EX435. Yes I am aware I am doing a double NAT. With the network hardware on the 192.168.50.0 network and my clients connecting to one of the VLANS that are 10.x.x.x.

          The Asus was a pretty simple setup but it has one fatal flaw in that it's only copper and an electrical spike killed one of those boxes already and luckily I had a spare that I put in it's place. So hence replacing it with this 7100 that has a fiber connection from the DMARC so I can avoid any electrical spikes in the future.

          As I had replied to michmoor earlier I created a LAN gateway of 192.168.50.2 and setup a route for destination addresses of 10.10.x.x to that GW. Do I need this? all net traffic that I am doing currently is originating from internal and I don't want random external traffic onto my network obviously.

          Virgomann, Did you have a typo when you suggested an outbound rule of 10.0.0.0/28? Wouldn't it be a 10.0.0.0/8 ? I did create that rule but it didn't get me anywhere from a 10x client.

          V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • V
            viragomann @Malicair
            last edited by

            @malicair said in LAN routing to VLANS:

            Virgomann, Did you have a typo when you suggested an outbound rule of 10.0.0.0/28? Wouldn't it be a 10.0.0.0/8 ? I did create that rule but it didn't get me anywhere from a 10x client.

            Yes, it should be 10.10.0.0/28. It's late here...

            Yes I am aware I am doing a double NAT.

            We were not assuming this.
            This would mean, that your switch translates the source IP in upstream packets into 192.168.50.2?

            In this case you would neither need the manual outbound NAT rule, nor the static route. Because pfSense would only see 192.168.50.2 and there should be an automatic outbound NAT rule for the LAN subnet anyway.

            M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • M
              Malicair @viragomann
              last edited by

              @viragomann
              On my EX435 switch I have a static route to 192.168.50.1 which "was" the ASUS router and is now the 7100. So I believe it is simply putting the 10.x traffic directly onto the 7100 which it knows nothing about. (note: I'm stretching my brain here...)

              V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • V
                viragomann @Malicair
                last edited by

                @malicair
                The route on pfSense for the 10.10.x would not impair the functionality even if it was not needed. Neither the outbound NAT rules did. In this case, pfSense would never get a packet for 10.10.x.

                However, you should know if your switch does nat.
                If you default route on the switch is pointing to pfSense, packets should get directed to it.
                So you could run a packet capture on pfSense LAN while you try to access an internet resource from a VLAN to see, what's going on.

                M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M
                  Malicair @viragomann
                  last edited by

                  @viragomann
                  The 7100 is seeing 10.x traffic.

                  Here is the results of a LAN packet capture:
                  18:28:16.793704 IP 10.10.8.12.29620 > 8.8.4.4.53: UDP, length 32
                  18:28:17.952164 IP 10.10.10.11.49268 > 8.8.8.8.53: UDP, length 59
                  18:28:17.952415 IP 10.10.10.11.64554 > 40.97.190.2.443: tcp 31
                  18:28:17.952794 IP 10.10.10.11.52456 > 8.8.8.8.53: UDP, length 59
                  18:28:17.952800 IP 10.10.10.11.63862 > 8.8.8.8.53: UDP, length 37
                  18:28:17.952807 IP 10.10.10.11.58518 > 8.8.8.8.53: UDP, length 37
                  18:28:20.972454 IP 10.10.10.11.64554 > 40.97.190.2.443: tcp 31

                  And here is results from the firewall:
                  Dec 6 18:27:17 LAN Default deny rule IPv4 (1000000103) 10.10.10.11 17.253.5.202 ICMP
                  Dec 6 18:27:20 LAN Default deny rule IPv4 (1000000103) 10.10.8.11:47105 8.8.4.4:53 UDP

                  V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • V
                    viragomann @Malicair
                    last edited by

                    @malicair
                    I see. Obviously pfSense doesn’t pass the packets.
                    You need a rule on LAN to allow it.
                    By default pfSense automatically creates a rule only for the LAN subnet. But 10.10.x.x lies outside of this.

                    Additionally you need the route and outbound NAT rule as mentioned above.

                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • M
                      Malicair @viragomann
                      last edited by

                      @viragomann

                      I created a LAN gateway of 192.168.50.2 and setup a route for destination addresses of 10.10.x.x to that GW. Is this sufficient?

                      V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • V
                        viragomann @Malicair
                        last edited by viragomann

                        @malicair
                        Yes, but don’t state it in the LAN interface settings, only in System > Routing > Gateways.

                        However, also this does only matter on inbound connections.

                        M 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • M
                          Malicair @viragomann
                          last edited by

                          @viragomann
                          I did not change any settings in interfaces > LAN

                          I went to System > Routing > Gateway and created the following:
                          Interface: LAN
                          Gateway: 192.168.50.2

                          Then into System > Routing > Static Routes and created the following:
                          Destination Network: 10.0.0.0 /28
                          Gateway: (selected 192.168.50.2)

                          NAT > Outbound:
                          4ae756d0-029c-40fc-ab75-cc47c382d529-image.png

                          I'm still not getting connectivity.
                          When I look at the firewall log I see both LAN and WAN deny of 10.x clients

                          V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • M
                            Malicair @viragomann
                            last edited by

                            @viragomann
                            FYI: It's late here.. going to pause until morning.

                            Thanks!

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • V
                              viragomann @Malicair
                              last edited by

                              @malicair said in LAN routing to VLANS:

                              When I look at the firewall log I see both LAN and WAN deny of 10.x clients

                              Can you post a screenshot, please?

                              M 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • M
                                Malicair @viragomann
                                last edited by

                                @viragomann
                                Want to circle back with you regarding the /28 designation that you referred to previously. As I understand it a /28 only has 15 addresses so a 10.0.0.0 would have a range of 10.0.0.0-10.0.0.15. Whereas a /8 would provide a range from 10.0.0.0-10.255.255.255 which would cover all 10.x addresses. Shouldn't I be applying a rule with a /8 to cover each of the VLans I have within 10.10.x.x & 10.20.x.x (10.10.8.x, 10.10.10.x, 10.10.14.x, 10.20.0.0)?

                                V 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • M
                                  Malicair @viragomann
                                  last edited by

                                  @viragomann
                                  Here is a screen shot of the firewall syslog:
                                  7e7cb0dc-409e-44cd-b80b-0315281aa57e-image.png

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • V
                                    viragomann @Malicair
                                    last edited by

                                    @malicair
                                    Yes, I was tired yesterday evening.
                                    For your networks you need at least 10.0.0.0/11 (10.0.0.0 - 10.31.255.255).
                                    Or even add a separate route for each subnet.

                                    Also the blocks by the firewall results of the too small range.

                                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • M
                                      Malicair @viragomann
                                      last edited by

                                      @viragomann
                                      OK, seems that I have full connectivity working now. :)

                                      I created rules for both the WAN and LAN interfaces allowing the traffic for the 10.0.0.0/8 network. Initially I had a mistake in only allowing TCP, which showed up in the syslogs so changed that to ANY and now my clients are connecting.

                                      After multiple days of chasing the configuration I'm quite happy that it's now working. THANKS MUCH!!

                                      Now onto my next step of getting the NORDVPN working. (AFTER SAVING MY CONFIG!)

                                      Cheers and have a great day!

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • First post
                                        Last post