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

    Netgate 6100 - Is this an acceptable design? WAN Bridge & Firewall on Same device.

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    8 Posts 2 Posters 686 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
      linux50
      last edited by

      Hello All,

      Trying to deploy this at a datacenter for a web hosting company. I wanted to ask if this design is an acceptable approach or if I'm just asking for trouble. We recently bought 2 x 6100 and they want them configured in an HA config. The firewalls will function as the main FW's for their little network plus a transparent firewall for any servers on their WAN network (they want to block inbound smtp). Using Draw-io I was able to create an overview of how this will be connected.

      e2dbff9c-6854-47f8-a658-a46b88f70b0c-image.png

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • stephenw10S
        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
        last edited by

        Using HA with bridges is generally considered a bad idea if you can avoid it. You would be relying on STP to prevent a loop there somewhere.

        https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/bridges/interoperability.html#bridging-interoperability-ha

        Steve

        L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • L
          linux50 @stephenw10
          last edited by linux50

          @stephenw10

          Hi Steve, So this setup "may" cause a loop or "will" cause a loop? is there anything I should do from the switch side to prevent this?

          Thanks for the help.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • stephenw10S
            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
            last edited by

            Well it depends what the colo drops are connected to but I'd expect them to be in the same layer 2. Thus if the bridges in both HA nodes are also connected to the same layer 2 on the back end there will be a loop. In that sort of setup STP usually disconnects one of those links to prevent it. Assuming STP is enabled on the upstream switch.

            L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • L
              linux50 @stephenw10
              last edited by

              @stephenw10

              Hi Steve,

              What if the colo uplinks are configured in a LACP config and the bridge I plan to use is in a Transparent Firewall methodology?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                Hmm, well that could be interesting. I have seen one other example of sync'd pfSense nodes in LACP links like that. It did work but.... that was some versions ago. They were not using any routed traffic with HA/CARP at the same time.
                So it's hard to recommend something like that. But it would not be a loop, it could work.

                I will also say it would be hard to support that if you ever needed TAC assistance.

                L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • L
                  linux50 @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  @stephenw10

                  Good Morning Steve - In respect of HA, Will the firewall failover to the secondary firewall if the uplink goes down or does HA only take effect if the Firewall suffers a Hardware failure?

                  Thanks,
                  JG

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    It would usually demote itself, causing a failover, if any interface that has a CARP VIP on it loses link. That can be affected if the interface is a bridge though for example. The bridge itself never goes down.

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