<?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[Clarification pfSense &#x2F; Untangle on same VM Host]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I've thought about this, but not really put it in practice yet and really need clarification.  I already have pfSense and would like to use Untangle with it in a virtualization scenario - using Xen or Hyper-V or other.  For example, at the border, I wish to have pfSense in front / behind the ISP router, and behind the pfSense I would have Untangle.</p>
<p dir="auto">My question is, if pfSense and Untangle is at the border as guest machines on same VM Host machine, how will traffic go from pfSense to Untangle directly?  I can see traffic sometimes going through Untangle and sometimes not.  Say pfSense 192.168.1.1 and Untangle 192.168.1.2…I guess I am a bit missing on <strong>how traffic will be forced to go through pfSense THEN to Untangle before</strong> it goes through the rest of my 192.168.1.x subnet.   Just because pfSense is 192.168.1.1 does not mean it will flow through 192.168.1.2 next….Can someone clarify please?</p>
<p dir="auto"><strong>UPDATE</strong>:  I think I got it…http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/14962-untangle-hardware - Bridge / Host / Bridge on VM Nics<br />
If anyone can further improve on this, please let me know.  <strong>Internet–(bridge VMnic)pfSense(host VMnic)--(host VMnic)Untangle(bridgeVMnic)--LAN</strong></p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/35323/clarification-pfsense-untangle-on-same-vm-host</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 10:38:10 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/35323.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 04:30:14 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Clarification pfSense &#x2F; Untangle on same VM Host on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:49:01 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">understanding that is not nessessary as this is just a function of how a virtual network works; virtual nics follow the same rules an actual nic follows. you'll want to chat a different forum for specifics on that issue if you must know all about vmware et all.<br />
all you need to know is what comes first and when.<br />
dont confuse 'multiple gateways', with simultaneous outbound gateways (a routing function) as opposed to a succession of gateways (a hierarchy).</p>
<p dir="auto">let us know when you have implemented this setup and we can help you more, as i think you'll have a better understanding of the basics involved here and we wont be rehashing the same content over and over. i dont want to sound rude at all, but i think if you made out a diagram it would help considerably.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/286797</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/286797</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[ericab]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:49:01 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Clarification pfSense &#x2F; Untangle on same VM Host on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:52:19 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Untangle does a good job of the filter for items such as certain protocols that I wish to block (i.e. MSN, etc), blocking of Ads, and REPORTS, etc…</p>
<p dir="auto">In terms of the multiple gateways, seems like a great solution; however, I never tried that type of setup so I do not know how it would work.  From what you are saying, my GW for all internal clients/ server would be my Untangle at 192.168.1.2 and the GW on my Untangle would actually be the pfSense at 192.168.1.1 - I hope I have that understood correctly, but I see this from Internal to External.  My confusion lies in the enforcement of traffic from External to Internal via pfSense then to Untangle.</p>
<p dir="auto">Taken from sample excerpt as one possible solution (One VM Host and pfSense / Untangle as Guests)...</p>
<p dir="auto">1 - VM bridged NIC 1: Internet --&gt; PFsense WAN<br />
2 - Host Only: PFSense LAN &amp; UT outside<br />
3 - VM Bridge NIC 2: UT inside --&gt; LAN switch</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/286786</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/286786</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[scottnguyen]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:52:19 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Clarification pfSense &#x2F; Untangle on same VM Host on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:25:27 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">your clients need to point to a gateway; your gateway; either statically or dynamically assigned. that gateway has its gateway and so-forth. think hierarchy.</p>
<p dir="auto">ahh.. so yes, "Just because pfSense is 192.168.1.1 does not mean it will flow through 192.168.1.2 next" but it depends on the next hop; and the next hop for each machine in a successive order is different. your right in your thinking to a point, but succession in outward movement (towards the net in your case) does not need to follow a logical number increment.</p>
<p dir="auto">"I can see traffic sometimes going through Untangle and sometimes not."<br />
yeah depends on what net your client has been assigned to.</p>
<p dir="auto">btw why do you need untangle in the picture ? drop it<br />
give me one good reason, and we will have 10 good answers against it  :)</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/286784</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/286784</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[ericab]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:25:27 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>