Setting up a VLAN part 2

stephenw10

Sorry I was out on an all night 120 mile cycle ride Saturday night. Yesterday was pretty much a write off! :)

I think we could easily loose sight of the big picture here.
The aim of this exercise is to learn about VLANs. The configuration we are hoping to end up with is:
pfSense using two interfaces, WAN on re0 and VLANs on re1.
The HP switch configured to split the VLANs between some it's ports. Such that some ports are pfSenses LAN interface and some are pfSenses other interface.

Although you have LAN setup on re2 at the moment that's only temporary while we configure VLANs on re1.

Setup another VLAN as Metu69salemi suggested.

You should only have one cable between pfSense (re1) and the trunk port on the switch (port1).

Steve

@stephenw10:

Sorry I was out on an all night 120 mile cycle ride Saturday night. Yesterday was pretty much a write off! :)

I think we could easily loose sight of the big picture here.
The aim of this exercise is to learn about VLANs. The configuration we are hoping to end up with is:
pfSense using two interfaces, WAN on re0 and VLANs on re1.
The HP switch configured to split the VLANs between some it's ports. Such that some ports are pfSenses LAN interface and some are pfSenses other interface.

Although you have LAN setup on re2 at the moment that's only temporary while we configure VLANs on re1.

Setup another VLAN as Metu69salemi suggested.

You should only have one cable between pfSense (re1) and the trunk port on the switch (port1).

Steve

hmmm, now i am confused, it is official.

i thought that doing everything from one interface was part of the reason i wasnt able to verify if i had everythign configured properly?

wasnt the recommendation to use 3 NICS?

re0- WAN
re1- VLANs (originally not in play)
re2- LAN (for 192.168.1.x network)

that would mean two connections from pfsense to my switch

re1- for VLANs (or 10.10.10.x network)
re0- for the regular 192.168.1.x network

unless i missed something, that is how i thought it was going to end up.

thanks.

(btw, i dont blame you for taking the day off, the weekends are there to enjoy and relax, sounds like you did both) :)

i have access to another switch i can use, but it isnt in the mix yet, just want some feedback…

it is an HP switch, but a little more advanced/better GUI than the one i am using.

in this switch, the vlan has 4 options:

no
tagged
untagged
forbid

i assume forbid= exclude

or is it

no=exclude

part of the confusion is that:

-i have never had to use vlans, but i want to learn
-every piece of device i have logged into with vlan capabilities has a different 'look' to it.

Metu69salemi

Please see attached file
you could also allow from the switch to use another management ip from another vlan or setup another management vlan

vlans.png_thumb

@Metu69salemi:

Please see attached file
you could also allow from the switch to use another management ip from another vlan or setup another management vlan

what is console? 1 PC i have connected to pfsense just to login to it to make changes?

also, wiring it up isnt a problem.

if i wire it i need to be able to build out the vlans for it to function properly.

i need guidance on that portion. i guess i need to go to the HP forums and ask them what the proper way to tag/untag is? that is my issue here (i think pfsense is setup properly).

thanks.

Metu69salemi

Console means, that you sit next to that machine, but in this case it's only needed if you have locked you self out from another vlan

@Metu69salemi:

Console means, that you sit next to that machine, but in this case it's only needed if you have locked you self out from another vlan

the HP switch has a management port section where i can dedicate 1 of the ports as a managed port.

i dont think that will be an issue unless i screw up the tagging/untagging/exclude, which is where i am stuck.

stephenw10

@tomdlgns:

hmmm, now i am confused, it is official.

i thought that doing everything from one interface was part of the reason i wasnt able to verify if i had everythign configured properly?

wasnt the recommendation to use 3 NICS?

re0- WAN
re1- VLANs (originally not in play)
re2- LAN (for 192.168.1.x network)

Originally you wanted to use just two interfaces on the pfSense machine so that is what we are attempting to achieve. We only recommended you setup re2 so that you didn't get locked out of pfSense if you configured VLANs incorrectly. You have assigned LAN to it but we didn't expect you to. It could be any OPT interface.

@tomdlgns:

that would mean two connections from pfsense to my switch

re1- for VLANs (or 10.10.10.x network)
re0- for the regular 192.168.1.x network

unless i missed something, that is how i thought it was going to end up.

Whilst you could have both interfaces connected to the switch it would be far more complex to setup and MUCH more likely to cause problems.

Technically you don't need use VLANs at all, you want two subnets and you have two interfaces.

Let me layout what I expect the final configuration to be.

WAN - re0
LAN - VLAN10 - re1 192.168.1.X
OPT1 - VLAN100 - re1 10.10.10.X
OPT2 - re2 192.168.2.X

I hope that makes some sort of sense!

Steve

@stephenw10:

@tomdlgns:

hmmm, now i am confused, it is official.

i thought that doing everything from one interface was part of the reason i wasnt able to verify if i had everythign configured properly?

wasnt the recommendation to use 3 NICS?

re0- WAN
re1- VLANs (originally not in play)
re2- LAN (for 192.168.1.x network)

Originally you wanted to use just two interfaces on the pfSense machine so that is what we are attempting to achieve. We only recommended you setup re2 so that you didn't get locked out of pfSense if you configured VLANs incorrectly. You have assigned LAN to it but we didn't expect you to. It could be any OPT interface.

@tomdlgns:

that would mean two connections from pfsense to my switch

re1- for VLANs (or 10.10.10.x network)
re0- for the regular 192.168.1.x network

unless i missed something, that is how i thought it was going to end up.

Whilst you could have both interfaces connected to the switch it would be far more complex to setup and MUCH more likely to cause problems.

Technically you don't need use VLANs at all, you want two subnets and you have two interfaces.

Let me layout what I expect the final configuration to be.

WAN - re0
LAN - VLAN10 - re1 192.168.1.X
OPT1 - VLAN100 - re1 10.10.10.X
OPT2 - re2 192.168.2.X

I hope that makes some sort of sense!

Steve

this gets better and better

where is 192.168.2.x coming from? and now another NIC?

-i'd like to setup a VLAN so i can work/test with it
-i can easily setup a second NIC/subnet using another switch, but that wont incorporate a VLAN, so i dont want to go that route.

what i planned on was this:

re0-WAN
re1- VLAN100 10.10.10.x
re2- my regular lan 192.168.1.x

what i wanted to do was then use my hp switch to work with the pfsense box

ports 1-4 would run the 192.168.1.x network and ports 5-8 would be tagged ports on vlan 100. i assumed that doing it this way would allow anything plugged into ports 5-8 would work on the vlan100 network.

later on, if i introduced a second vlan, vlan200 i THOUGHT i would be able to untag ports 7.8 and tag those in vlan 200 to work on another subnet.

apparently i am wrong in how vlans work, but i thought that was the entire point of VLANS… separate networks on the same physical switch.

edit-

are you guys saying that i cant have anything on the default lan tagged with vlan 100 traffic?

do i need to do something like this

default vlan- EEEEEEEE (this would need a 'console PC' so i could login to pfsense on 192.168.1.1 and make changes)
vlan10- TTTTUUUU (ports 1-4 tagged for vlan10)
vlan100-UUUUTTTT (ports 5-8 tagged for vlan100)

or am i still way off?

stephenw10

@tomdlgns:

this gets better and better

:D

@tomdlgns:

where is 192.168.2.x coming from? and now another NIC?

192.168.2.X is just a subnet I invented to be the extra interface used for admin access.
There are still only 3 NICs but there are two VLANs on re1.

@tomdlgns:

-i'd like to setup a VLAN so i can work/test with it
what i planned on was this:

re0-WAN
re1- VLAN100 10.10.10.x
re2- my regular lan 192.168.1.x

Ok, we can aim for this. This will use three NICs at the end where as originally you wanted to use just two.

@tomdlgns:

what i wanted to do was then use my hp switch to work with the pfsense box

ports 1-4 would run the 192.168.1.x network and ports 5-8 would be tagged ports on vlan 100. i assumed that doing it this way would allow anything plugged into ports 5-8 would work on the vlan100 network.

later on, if i introduced a second vlan, vlan200 i THOUGHT i would be able to untag ports 7.8 and tag those in vlan 200 to work on another subnet.

Yes that's what we will do except that you will need 2 of the ports on your switch to connect to the pfSense box so you will only have 6 left for connecting clients (or other switches).

@tomdlgns:

apparently i am wrong in how vlans work, but i thought that was the entire point of VLANS… separate networks on the same physical switch.

You are right, that's exactly what they're for.

Here is the switch config I would expect to work for your current setup:


port:        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
vlan1:       E E E E U U U U
vlan100:     T U U U E E E E

In which port 1 is connected to re1 and port 8 is connected to re2.
This will give you 10.10.10.x on ports 2-4 and 192.168.1.X on ports 5-7.

Are all your NICs identical?

Steve

@stephenw10:

@tomdlgns:

this gets better and better

:D

@tomdlgns:

where is 192.168.2.x coming from? and now another NIC?

192.168.2.X is just a subnet I invented to be the extra interface used for admin access.
There are still only 3 NICs but there are two VLANs on re1.

@tomdlgns:

-i'd like to setup a VLAN so i can work/test with it
what i planned on was this:

re0-WAN
re1- VLAN100 10.10.10.x
re2- my regular lan 192.168.1.x

Ok, we can aim for this. This will use three NICs at the end where as originally you wanted to use just two.

@tomdlgns:

what i wanted to do was then use my hp switch to work with the pfsense box

ports 1-4 would run the 192.168.1.x network and ports 5-8 would be tagged ports on vlan 100. i assumed that doing it this way would allow anything plugged into ports 5-8 would work on the vlan100 network.

later on, if i introduced a second vlan, vlan200 i THOUGHT i would be able to untag ports 7.8 and tag those in vlan 200 to work on another subnet.

Yes that's what we will do except that you will need 2 of the ports on your switch to connect to the pfSense box so you will only have 6 left for connecting clients (or other switches).

@tomdlgns:

apparently i am wrong in how vlans work, but i thought that was the entire point of VLANS… separate networks on the same physical switch.

You are right, that's exactly what they're for.

Here is the switch config I would expect to work for your current setup:
port:        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
vlan1:       E E E E U U U U
vlan100:     T U U U E E E E
In which port 1 is connected to re1 and port 8 is connected to re2.
This will give you 10.10.10.x on ports 2-4 and 192.168.1.X on ports 5-7.

Are all your NICs identical?

Steve

thanks steve. i didnt realize, until after i posted, that you were using the same nic for the other vlan, my bad on that.

i have 3 nics now and i wanted to only use 2 until it was brought up that carrying multiple vlan traffic over 1 wire/nic might not work if the nic isnt vlan compatible, that is when the second LAN NIC (3rd NIC if you count WAN) was introduced.

i realize i will only have 6 ports to use for devices, but what i was getting at was that 1-4 was for 1 subnet and 5-8 was for another subnet (or did i mess up again)? 1 and 5 would be used for the respective NICs on pfsense.

my main goal is to

-incorporate a vlan
-not lock myself out of anything

i want to keep my existing 192.168.1.x network as is (for the other devices on it) and i want to be able to manage pfsense from any 192.168.1.x computer

knowing all of that, do you still suggest i connect/configure my network with what your last posted stated?

i dont mind a little redesign, but i want to make sure we are talking about the same stuff when i begin to implement this

stephenw10

Yes try my last suggestion. It should work, then again I thought that before! ::)

Steve

@stephenw10:

Yes try my last suggestion. It should work, then again I thought that before! ::)

Steve

ok thanks, will try that

can you explain why only 1 port is Tagges on vlan100?

port: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
vlan1: E E E E U U U U
vlan100: T U U U E E E E

why isnt vlan100: T T T T E E E E

i understand why vlan1 is E E E E (those ports are for vlan100) and U U U U on vlan100 are untagged packets for the 192.168.1.x network, correct?

stephenw10

The three different port modes are like this as I understand it, though I don't actually have an HP switch:

E - Exclude this port from VLANX. I.e. any packets arriving on the port from outside tagged VLANX will be disgarded and any packets inside the switch tagged VLANX will not switched to this port.

U - Untagged port. I.e. packets in the switch tagged VLANX can be switched to this port and will have tags removed when leaving. Untagged packets arriving on this port will be tagged VLANX upon entering the switch.

T - Tagged port. Packets tagged VLANX inside the switch can be switched to this port and leave the switch still tagged. Packets arriving at the switch tagged VLANX are allowed to enter.
Confusingly this this port type is also referred to as a trunk port because it can be a member of many vlans carrying all traffic to your router.

In the switch configuration packets arriving at ports 2, 3 or 4 will be tagged VLAN100 as they enter the switch. They can then be switched to any other port participating in VLAN100 (1-4). If the packet is addressed to the internet somewhere it will be switched to port 1 where it leaves the switch still tagged and arrives at re1 where the pfSense VLAN100 interface is setup to receive it and route it appropriately.

Returning packets are sent to the switch from pfSense tagged VLAN100. Port 1 allows them to enter the switch and they are switched to the correct port. On leaving the port (2-4) the VLAN tagging removed so that the pakets arrive back at the client untagged and able to received.

Steve

@stephenw10:

The three different port modes are like this as I understand it, though I don't actually have an HP switch:

E - Exclude this port from VLANX. I.e. any packets arriving on the port from outside tagged VLANX will be disgarded and any packets inside the switch tagged VLANX will not switched to this port.

U - Untagged port. I.e. packets in the switch tagged VLANX can be switched to this port and will have tags removed when leaving. Untagged packets arriving on this port will be tagged VLANX upon entering the switch.

T - Tagged port. Packets tagged VLANX inside the switch can be switched to this port and leave the switch still tagged. Packets arriving at the switch tagged VLANX are allowed to enter.
Confusingly this this port type is also referred to as a trunk port because it can be a member of many vlans carrying all traffic to your router.

In the switch configuration packets arriving at ports 2, 3 or 4 will be tagged VLAN100 as they enter the switch. They can then be switched to any other port participating in VLAN100 (1-4). If the packet is addressed to the internet somewhere it will be switched to port 1 where it leaves the switch still tagged and arrives at re1 where the pfSense VLAN100 interface is setup to receive it and route it appropriately.

Returning packets are sent to the switch from pfSense tagged VLAN100. Port 1 allows them to enter the switch and they are switched to the correct port. On leaving the port (2-4) the VLAN tagging removed so that the pakets arrive back at the client untagged and able to received.

Steve

i am going to read that over a few times. at first glance i am pretty confident that your explanation was very good, it makes sense. i wish you posted that on page 1.

;D

@stephenw10:

Yes try my last suggestion. It should work, then again I thought that before! ::)

Steve

so far so good, we are making progress.

192 PCs are working and my laptop, plugged into port 2 with port 1 going to re1 like you said is giving out a 10.10.10.x ip address.

however, we are not done yet.

the pc on the 10.10.10.x network cant hit the internet.

do i need to write a firewall rule for that?

EDIT- ok, i decided to add another port, port 4, away from vlan100 and into vlan1 (the default VLAN).

i marked it as U in vlan 1 and E in vlan100 and saved…no issues, works well. :)

i finally feel like i am making some progress being able to get this somewhat working and seeing it physically plugged in.

once i get some more help (fingers crossed) regarding the 10.10.10.x PC not being able to hit the internet, i am going to document this setup so i know what it takes to get it up.

stephenw10

If your PC on the VLAN100 port is receiving DHCP then you're 99% there. :)

Yes you need to put a firewall on the VLAN100 interface (OPT1 or whatever you have called it) to allow access to the internet.
You can use the default rule on LAN as a template but bare in mind that's a very open rule.

Steve

@stephenw10:

If your PC on the VLAN100 port is receiving DHCP then you're 99% there. :)

Yes you need to put a firewall on the VLAN100 interface (OPT1 or whatever you have called it) to allow access to the internet.
You can use the default rule on LAN as a template but bare in mind that's a very open rule.

Steve

thanks.

how about ping? my pc grabbed 10.10.10.210, the first ip in the range, but i couldnt ping 10.10.10.0 or .1 do i need to write a rule for that? i had another PC on vlan100 and i couldnt ping it.

however, from a 192.168.1.x computer, i was able to ping 10.10.10.210 i was happy to see replies, but i expected to get 0 replies from the start w/o writing rules for that stuff.

EDIT- FINALLY ONLINE WITH A PC ON THE VLAN…..YESSSSSSSSSSSS

EDIT- now that the wide open rules are open (* everywhere) i can ping 10.10.10.1. as i stated in the post below, i believe it is all firewall rules at this point. obviously i dont want VLANs talking to each other. some, maybe, but not all.

my LAN rule is

protocol- *
source- LAN net
port- *
destination- *
port- *
gate- *
queue- none

that is the default rule for LAN. since there are no rules to deny vlan subnets is that why i can ping?

now that i made rules for VLAN, i can ping 192 addresses from the 10 network.

i assume this is all firewall rules at this point?

@stephenw10:

The three different port modes are like this as I understand it, though I don't actually have an HP switch:

E - Exclude this port from VLANX. I.e. any packets arriving on the port from outside tagged VLANX will be disgarded and any packets inside the switch tagged VLANX will not switched to this port.

U - Untagged port. I.e. packets in the switch tagged VLANX can be switched to this port and will have tags removed when leaving. Untagged packets arriving on this port will be tagged VLANX upon entering the switch.

T - Tagged port. Packets tagged VLANX inside the switch can be switched to this port and leave the switch still tagged. Packets arriving at the switch tagged VLANX are allowed to enter.
Confusingly this this port type is also referred to as a trunk port because it can be a member of many vlans carrying all traffic to your router.

In the switch configuration packets arriving at ports 2, 3 or 4 will be tagged VLAN100 as they enter the switch. They can then be switched to any other port participating in VLAN100 (1-4). If the packet is addressed to the internet somewhere it will be switched to port 1 where it leaves the switch still tagged and arrives at re1 where the pfSense VLAN100 interface is setup to receive it and route it appropriately.

Returning packets are sent to the switch from pfSense tagged VLAN100. Port 1 allows them to enter the switch and they are switched to the correct port. On leaving the port (2-4) the VLAN tagging removed so that the pakets arrive back at the client untagged and able to received.

Steve

i have access to another HP switch (not the one i am using in this thread) and it looks a little more vlan friendly, these are the options and what they mean.

http://www.hp.com/rnd/device_help/help/hpwnd/webhelp/HPJ4813A/configuration_vlan.htm

that isnt for the specific switch i have, but the t/u/f/n list has to be the same…

The modes are:

Tagged - When a port is tagged, it allows communication among the different VLANs to which it is assigned.
Untagged - When a port is untagged, it can only be a member on one VLAN.
No - The port is not a member of that VLAN.
Forbid - The port is "forbidden" to join that VLAN.

am i right in assuming that No and Forbid can be used, loosely, if your main goal is to not allow a specific port(s) in a particular vlan?

i know this is more of an HP specific question, but figure it wouldn't hurt to get the opinion of people who are morre familiar with vlans.