Navigation

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

    Basic statically routed set up not working!

    Routing and Multi WAN
    3
    11
    4083
    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.
    • E
      edb49 last edited by

      I'm trying to set up pfSense with a really basic setup, and I can't for the life of me work out why it's not working. The set up is as follows:

      WAN: 1.1.1.8/27 (with default gateway set to the service provider's IP)
      LAN: 2.2.2.1/29

      WAN and LAN default rules added to allow all traffic.

      I have a host, 2.2.2.3, that I can ping locally from the pfSense firewall. I can access the firewall remotely over the Internet, but when I try to access the host I get this message:

      ping 2.2.2.3
      PING 2.2.2.3 (2.2.2.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
      From 1.1.1.8 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
      From 1.1.1.8 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable

      The same behaviour happens if I try to access a TCP port. I know that 2.2.2.3 has remote desktop open, so I try from my remote host 4.4.4.4:

      telnet 2.2.2.3 3389
      Trying 2.2.2.3…
      telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host

      When I go to Diagnostics->Show States I see this:
      tcp 2.2.2.3:3389 <- 4.4.4.4:57304 CLOSED:SYN_SENT
      tcp 4.4.4.4:57304 -> 2.2.2.3:3389 SYN_SENT:CLOSED

      I can't for the life of me work out why pfSense is reporting the host is unreachable, when it is directly attached? I am sure this is something incredibly simple, any help would be really appreciated!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • H
        hoba last edited by

        Did you shutdown NAT or add any static routes? We need more details on this.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • E
          edb49 last edited by

          There's no NAT or static routes set up on the box.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • H
            hoba last edited by

            pfSense does NAT by default, so if you have not disabled it it DOES nat. That's why I was asking.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • E
              edb49 last edited by

              OK, under the "Firewall"->"NAT" section in the web interface, there are three tabs. There are no entries set up on any of the tabs. On the "Outbound" tab the radio button "Enable IPSec passthru" is selected.

              I've been logging on with SSH and the rules all look like they're configured correctly, I can't see a rule that would block traffic.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • H
                hoba last edited by

                You have to enable advanced outbound nat at firewall>nat, outbound tab and then delete the autocreated rules at the bottom. if advanced outbound nat is not enabled pfSense will do NAT on any interface with a gateway (like WAN).

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • E
                  edb49 last edited by

                  Thanks for the tip. I'm not sure this has had the desired effect, I turned it off as per your instructions, and checked with a "pfctl -a nat" command, which showed no NAT rules. I still get the "destination host unreachable" error when trying to connect to a host behind pfSense.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • H
                    hoba last edited by

                    Is your WAN in a private subnetrange? If yes you need to uncheck "block private IPs" at interfaces>wan.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • E
                      edb49 last edited by

                      No, the WAN is in a public range. I've unblocked the private IPs anyway; I'm trying to run with the minimum feature set.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        sai last edited by

                        If your LAN is private IPs then you need NAT.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • E
                          edb49 last edited by

                          Turns out the cause of this was the bridging was not working as anticipated; I was under the impression that bridging an interface with another effectively gave you a layer 2 connection between the two ports. Moving the computer from the bridged port into the port the bridged port was bridged with resolved this.

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