Maximum IP adresses issued on LAN, and I can not get internet access.



  • Good day to all. I am a first time user of this software. I am stumped….. This is my first time setting up pfsense.

    Background:

    I am to use pfsense for a large high rise apartment building (185 units) free wireless network, located in Ocean City New Jersey. I have installed 3 wireless access points to a switch, to trial a few floors, and plan the server placement in between the 200 MB internet connection supplied by comcast and a switch. Each wireless access point will be connected to the switch.

    I will using it initially for a click through splash page and for issuing ip addressees to devices connecting to the network. After it is up and running, I will implement the firewall, and authentication with pfsenses user directory.

    My first question

    Is there an ip addressing scheme to get the dhcp server to issue more than 254 ip addresses? A few 1000 plus would be great. During the summer months there can be up to 1000 people residing in the building.

    My current problem

    I can access the web configurator, but can not get internet access for the test sup prior to placement in the network.

    I successfully installed pfsense on a computer with 2 NIC cards, and can access it through a switch to web configuration utility, but get no internet access to the computer connected to it as a client.

    Here is my settings:

    WAN  DHCP 10.0.3.9/24 (issued by another current router on the extisitng lan)
    LAN            192.168.0.1/16

    I am running the DHCP server on the LAN interface above, with ip addressing scheme from 192.168.0.10 thru 192.168.0.254. My gateway and DNS is set to 192.168.0.1.

    I did not set up any firewall rules, and no authentication, or security. Just enabled the captive portal for the test set up.

    I rebooted and restarted everything multiple times, but I still can not access the internet through pfsense.

    If your near ocean city I'll buy you some beers, if you can help me with this.

    Thanx

    Ron



  • Use 2 interfaces with each having a /24

    Use 3 if you need a management interface.

    This is easy and cheap.


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    "Is there an ip addressing scheme to get the dhcp server to issue more than 254 ip addresses? "

    Um sorry but why are you setting up this system??  You don't even know basic network masking?  If you need 1000 IPs then use a /22 – but you already put /16 on pfsense lan - so why do you have your dhcp scope so limited?

    Can pfsense ping the internet?  From the web gui go to diag. ping - can you ping your gateway.  What IP address does pfsense have on its wan interface?

    You think 1K uses are going to be happy with the wifi you get with 3 AP??  I really think you need to some that does this sort of stuff for a living to set it up for you.



  • @johnpoz:

    "Is there an ip addressing scheme to get the dhcp server to issue more than 254 ip addresses? "

    Um sorry but why are you setting up this system??  You don't even know basic network masking?  If you need 1000 IPs then use a /22 – but you already put /16 on pfsense lan - so why do you have your dhcp scope so limited?

    Thank you, I change the configuration, I understand. I am semi IP retarted.  Greatly apreeciated.

    Can pfsense ping the internet?

    No I  can ping the 192.168.0.1

    From the web gui go to diag. ping - can you ping your gateway.  What IP address does pfsense have on its wan interface?

    10.0.3.9

    You think 1K uses are going to be happy with the wifi you get with 3 AP??  I really think you need to some that does this sort of stuff for a living to set it up for you.

    The 3 dual band 2/5 G APs installed are for a testing to cover 28 units only, over 2 floors. We are planning on deploying one per approximate 10 apartments. It will be a free network for the condo association.

    Yes, someone else could set this up very quickly, I am open to paying someone.



  • Set up an additional ones besides the LAN and WAN with a setting of 24?

    @kejianshi:

    Use 2 interfaces with each having a /24

    Use 3 if you need a management interface.

    This is easy and cheap.


  • Banned

    Sorry I still do not get why are you using so small DHCP range (subset of /24) when you already have /16 in use on your LAN.



  • @doktornotor:

    Sorry I still do not get why are you using so small DHCP range (subset of /24) when you already have /16 in use on your LAN.

    I am connected to lan port on wireless router, as a test setup. I am not directly connected to the cable modem, where the box will be finally installed. I am assuming since I set up the WAN side with DHCP. when I do the final install between the cable modem and switch. it will detect the new IP from the cable modem.

    Is the /24 issued by the router i am connected to ?

    That is my current assumption.

    I changed my LAN to /22.


  • Banned

    Sigh. I give up. Making your LAN smaller will NOT help to solve lack of available IPs caused by assigning a yet even smaller subset of the available LAN range to the DHCP server. Kindly Google for some subnet calculator.



  • @doktornotor:

    Sigh. I give up. Making your LAN smaller will NOT help to solve lack of available IPs caused by assigning a yet even smaller subset of the available LAN range to the DHCP server. Kindly Google for some subnet calculator.

    Ok .


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    So pfsense gets 10.0.3.9 on its wan, what is its gateway - can it ping that?  So your behind a nat already,so double nat.

    Until pfsense itself can get to the internet, no clients will ever be able to get to the internet.

    What do you have in front of pfsense?

    As to the mask stuff.. So your lan with /16 gives you 65k addresses to work with 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.255.254, you could your make your dhcp scope had out all of those or any portion of those you want to hand out.

    That mask is to big if you ask me, if you need 1000 users then I would make the mask on the lan /22 - or I would make multiple segments vs putting all those users in 1 segment.  Please don't take this the wrong way - but if your having issues with this basic stuff, I am curious why are you trying to set this up.  Wifi network for 1000 users would normally require way more than 3 AP, unless you only expected a very small portion of that user base to ever be on at the same time.

    Lets say you you had = split between 3 AP, that is 333 users on each AP all sharing the bandwidth.  What APs did you put in?  Hope some very high end enterprise grade - or do you have some soho routers your trying to use as AP?  Even the highest end AP wouldn't do very good with 300 clients on them ;)

    I would suggest you hire company/consultant that deals with wifi installs of this nature to best help you make the users happy, etc.



  • @johnpoz:

    So pfsense gets 10.0.3.9 on its wan, what is its gateway - can it ping that?  So your behind a nat already,so double nat.

    YES

    Until pfsense itself can get to the internet, no clients will ever be able to get to the internet.

    What do you have in front of pfsense?

    As to the mask stuff.. So your lan with /16 gives you 65k addresses to work with 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.255.254, you could your make your dhcp scope had out all of those or any portion of those you want to hand out.

    That mask is to big if you ask me, if you need 1000 users then I would make the mask on the lan /22 - or I would make multiple segments vs putting all those users in 1 segment.  Please don't take this the wrong way - but if your having issues with this basic stuff, I am curious why are you trying to set this up.  Wifi network for 1000 users would normally require way more than 3 AP, unless you only expected a very small portion of that user base to ever be on at the same time.

    We are installing 18, 3 is a test. There are a 1000 people in the building for the summer months, almost empty off season. I just want not to run out of IPs, I have no idea howe many devices. tablets computers and phones. 10 per unit maybe.

    Lets say you you had = split between 3 AP, that is 333 users on each AP all sharing the bandwidth.  What APs did you put in?  Hope some very high end enterprise grade - or do you have some soho routers your trying to use as AP?  Even the highest end AP wouldn't do very good with 300 clients on them ;)

    The 18 APs will service no more than 60 users each and we will add more later when adoption ramps up.

    I would suggest you hire company/consultant that deals with wifi installs of this nature to best help you make the users happy, etc.

    Anyone interested ? I do not want to F it up.



  • I put netgear nighthawk wireless routers r7000 ac1900 for the test some with tomato firmware and netgear, and will be running them as APs. They are limited to 32 connections per channel running netgears firmware.


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    "The 18 APs will service no more than 60 users each and we will add more later when adoption ramps up. "
    "I put netgear nighthawk wireless routers r7000 ac1900 for the test "

    So these home routers AC1900, r7000 are just tests.. What AP are you going to use in production?  You can not be serious that you would roll out home routers as AP in such a setup??

    60 users each is a LOT if you expect any sort of actual performance.



  • @doktornotor:

    Sorry I still do not get why are you using so small DHCP range (subset of /24) when you already have /16 in use on your LAN.

    I'm not sure if you understand /24 /16 /8 etc prefixes, so I will post this.

    https://www.ripe.net/images/cidr_working42.jpg

    The reason I said use 2 /24s or maybe even 3 if you have the interfaces for it is because thats simple and easy and most consumer equipment defaults to using /24s anyway.

    You can get lots of IPs on a single interface by making your prefix size larger (which means using smaller namubers - /16 is bigger than /24)

    For instance, using a /23 on your LAN would get you 512 addresses.


  • LAYER 8 Netgate

    What's the budget for the project?

    What do you have in place for switching and PoE?

    Are you running new cables to the optimal locations (usually in ceilings) or are you just putting them wherever there is already a run? If the latter, where are they typically located?

    Are you going to try to rely on meshing in any locations?

    What's the general building construction?  How many floors?

    How did you arrive at the 18 AP number?  Seems WAY too low at 10.3 apartment units per AP.

    What kind of performance is expected?

    Growth over 5-7 years (think about increases in associated devices)?

    Any other requirements (captive portal, multiple BSSIDs, etc)?


  • LAYER 8 Netgate

    @kejianshi:

    The reason I said use 2 /24s or maybe even 3 if you have the interfaces for it is because thats simple and easy and most consumer equipment defaults to using /24s anyway.

    Using multiple subnets on the same SSID is tricky.  I don't believe there is any requirement to renew DHCP when roaming from AP to AP.

    With wired you can do whatever you want.  Wireless, not so much.



  • Then that leaves changing prefix size.  Its just that anyone who could set that up easily wouldn't have asked the question to begin with.


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    ^ exactly those are all basic questions on setting up something like this.

    Plus many more, many!  Budget for a rollout of this sort of thing is going to be in the 10's of Ks most likely.  There is a huge difference between setting up a wifi ap in your house or smb vs something like this with 1000 users in a high rise anything.  Are you attempting to just cover common areas in the building or the apt themselves.

    Are the apt owners running their own wifi?  Do they have wired internet now?  That could cause huge issues with wifi noise.  To think such a project could be done by someone that does not even understand basic netmasks..  No offense but you are so far over head..

    Only thing I can say positive is you picked pfsense ;)



  • Thank you all ! I got it running….. moved the server in between the cable modem and the switch.

    I would buy everyone here a few beers for your help. You all have brought from me from semi retarded IP class, to handicapped level !

    @kejianshi:

    @doktornotor:

    Sorry I still do not get why are you using so small DHCP range (subset of /24) when you already have /16 in use on your LAN.

    I'm not sure if you understand /24 /16 /8 etc prefixes, so I will post this.

    https://www.ripe.net/images/cidr_working42.jpg

    The reason I said use 2 /24s or maybe even 3 if you have the interfaces for it is because thats simple and easy and most consumer equipment defaults to using /24s anyway.

    You can get lots of IPs on a single interface by making your prefix size larger (which means using smaller namubers - /16 is bigger than /24)

    For instance, using a /23 on your LAN would get you 512 addresses.



  • Thank you , now I understand  that Ethernet interfaces gives more IPs.

    @kejianshi:

    Use 2 interfaces with each having a /24

    Use 3 if you need a management interface.

    This is easy and cheap.



  • And so does using a /23 or /16 or whatever.  So, be sure of your needs.



  • Any recommendations  for ones you have used ? Fast and reliable ….and off the shelf ..

    I like off the shelf ones, the maintance department in the building can plug a spare preconfigured one in , for a hot swap, go to local store 10 minutes away and replace.

    I meant that net gear published a max of around 30 users per channel.  Most users will be just surfing or email. The reason I am installing this software to manage and monitor the bandwidth.  I just want them to support the highest speed, for the least amount of money, with of course reliability. I am in the testing phase. The netgear router did not fart or burp with 10 simo video streams. I have no way to test more right now.

    thank you

    @johnpoz:

    "The 18 APs will service no more than 60 users each and we will add more later when adoption ramps up. "
    "I put netgear nighthawk wireless routers r7000 ac1900 for the test "

    So these home routers AC1900, r7000 are just tests.. What AP are you going to use in production?  You can not be serious that you would roll out home routers as AP in such a setup??

    60 users each is a LOT if you expect any sort of actual performance.


  • LAYER 8 Netgate

    I just want them to support the highest speed, for the least amount of money, with of course reliability.

    "Pick any two"

    The bare minimum I would look at for this is Ubiquiti UniFi.

    I like off the shelf ones, the maintance department in the building can plug a spare preconfigured one in , for a hot swap, go to local store 10 minutes away and replace.

    Except that when something fails in 18 months you find that what you've deployed was discontinued and is no longer available.

    Have spares.

    It truly boggles the mind that people think Wi-Fi home routers scale to something like this.

    I would start by buying a UniFi UAP Pro, installing it, and performing a survey to see how well it covers your construction.  As a GENERAL rule of thumb, I would shoot for no less than -67 on 5GHz.  2.4 will be stronger.

    I would stop worrying about users per AP/radio.  I believe you are going to find that in an apartment setting, you cannot get a strong enough signal to enough people to have to worry about it with anything resembling quality radios.


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    Dude if I was trying to do something like this on shoestring budget I would deploy unifi AP, the entry levels are $70 - pros would be better at $200 each.

    They are the cheapest AP with at least some enterprise features, etc.  And a controller to give you details of how many clients, how they are connected, bandwidth used, etc. etc.  Zero Handoff, etc..  Ceiling mounted POE.

    https://www.ubnt.com/unifi/unifi-ap/

    These would allow someone to just swap new on it, etc.  Not sure how you expect someone to swap in a soho router as AP unless its been pre setup as AP, etc.



  • @Derelict:

    What's the budget for the project?

    I am personally funding the test trial, budget is low of course.

    What do you have in place for switching and PoE?

    All Gig managed switches and 200 mb comcast connection

    Are you running new cables to the optimal locations (usually in ceilings) or are you just putting them wherever there is already a run? If the latter, where are they typically located?

    cat5e between gig switch to each AP.

    Are you going to try to rely on meshing in any locations?

    No.

    What's the general building construction?  here is their web site :http://thegardensplaza.com/

    1 FT Cement floors, I am getting 3 floors with 75 % speed and very strong signal, there are cement columns in certain locations

    How many floors?

    15 floors - each floor has 14 units, building is 340 FT wide by approx 60 FT.

    How did you arrive at the 18 AP number?

    10 Apartments per AP. some what educated guess. Maybe If I put four per every other floor it would be better.

    Seems WAY too low at 10.3 apartment units per AP.

    Yes, you are right. the average age of owners is 50 to 60 years old plus is the demographic.

    Initally , I think it will be enough, but when the season hits, I am worried. I have a 900 SF unit, and my family has 5-7 devices, multiple that by 185. Some units might have one.

    What kind of performance is expected?

    High, network should support video streaming Roku, apple TV and Amazon boxes, bandwidth is top priority.

    Growth over 5-7 years (think about increases in associated devices)?

    More bandwidth usage, not number of users.

    Any other requirements (captive portal, multiple BSSIDs, etc)?

    Captive portal, authentication


  • LAYER 8 Netgate

    @ronboth:

    What's the budget for the project?

    I am personally funding the test trial, budget is low of course.

    What do you have in place for switching and PoE?

    All Gig managed switches and 200 mb comcast connection

    PoE?

    Are you running new cables to the optimal locations (usually in ceilings) or are you just putting them wherever there is already a run? If the latter, where are they typically located?

    cat5e between gig switch to each AP.

    You didn't really answer the questions.

    What's the general building construction?  here is their web site :http://thegardensplaza.com/

    1 FT Cement floors, I am getting 3 floors with 75 % speed and very strong signal, there are cement columns in certain locations

    I call bullshit on this one. 1 foot of concrete decimates 2.4 and especially 5.  What are the numbers?

    As occupancy goes up, so does noise.  What works in testing will fall on its face when you have everyone bringing in their phones and Mi-Fis on nonstandard channels.  You want this to work well enough everywhere that they never even think about getting the Mi-Fi out of their laptop bag.

    How many floors?

    15 floors - each floor has 14 units, building is 340 FT wide by approx 60 FT.

    How did you arrive at the 18 AP number?

    10 Apartments per AP. some what educated guess. Maybe If I put four per every other floor it would be better.

    Seems WAY too low at 10.3 apartment units per AP.

    Yes, you are right. the average age of owners is 50 to 60 years old plus is the demographic.

    Initally , I think it will be enough, but when the season hits, I am worried. I have a 900 SF unit, and my family has 5-7 devices, multiple that by 185. Some units might have one.

    What kind of performance is expected?

    High, network should support video streaming Roku, apple TV and Amazon boxes, bandwidth is top priority.

    You and your users are going to be extremely disappointed.

    Growth over 5-7 years (think about increases in associated devices)?

    More bandwidth usage, not number of users.

    Take another look at the trends.  There's this current buzzword called the Internet of Things.

    Any other requirements (captive portal, multiple BSSIDs, etc)?

    Captive portal, authentication

    Authentication against what?


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    You don't just throw some home wifi routers together and call it a trial for wifi to cover a building of this nature.

    Unless your wanting to just give guest access in the lobby or something?

    My suggestion to you is hire someone to do this correctly, or what is going to happen is spend money and time just to crash and burn..

    As to your budget - low would be 20K for a project of this nature if you ask me for shoot from the hip number, and that dreaming low to be honest.


  • LAYER 8 Netgate

    Just for hardware.


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    Yeah, exactly!  That is not counting engineering cost, install, etc..



  • I second Ubiquity recommended in the above. They have this thing called 'seamless roaming' or something, which the people wil probably like.

    If you have 1000 people on a 200 line, and they are all going to stream video, your 200 line probably isn't enough(?)

    Also, have you considered security? If you put 1000 people in one LAN, they are all in the same LAN.

    Now, people around here know me as the eternal noob ( ;D ), but shouldn't you divide your network, for security and control?

    I could even envision you buying 185 Unify-UAP's, and install one in each condo. They are not expensive to begin with, and I think at 185+ units (spares too) you will get a fat-fat-fat discount (buy 250 units, get them for 50% perhaps). Of course, charging the condo-owners for this hardware makes only sense to me, so you keep it out of the implementation project.

    Then, ideally, you could create 185 VLANs so you can control each condo separately (switch them off if they misbehave/shut down that part of your internet when the condo is empty/setup parental block lists per condo if they require so because of young kids, disable internet on a time schedule if they request so, block VLAN23 scriptkiddies on visit @ grandpa from trying to hack VLAN167, etc: all things you can't do with one huge LAN & DHCP - you can do DHCP within each VLAN, however).

    Of course, and this is what I don't know but I am sure the seniors in here do know: is there a way of connecting 185 VLAN's without having to use 185 physical NIC's?

    Finally: you for sure will want CARP, and I really think you will need multiple 200 lines. Ideally you'll setup traffic shaper between them to balance the load.

    This' all noob-thinking. Seniors in 3-2-1 to shoot me  ;D ;D ;D


  • LAYER 8 Global Moderator

    If your going to put a AP in each condo - why even bother, since you would need a wire to each condo in that sort of setup.  Let them buy and setup their own hardware, you just provide the jack, etc.

    As to need 185 nics for a 185 vlans??  No your router would not need 185 nics ;)



  • @Mr.:

    I second Ubiquity recommended in the above. They have this thing called 'seamless roaming' or something, which the people wil probably like.

    If you have 1000 people on a 200 line, and they are all going to stream video, your 200 line probably isn't enough(?)

    Also, have you considered security? If you put 1000 people in one LAN, they are all in the same LAN.

    Now, people around here know me as the eternal noob ( ;D ), but shouldn't you divide your network, for security and control?

    I could even envision you buying 185 Unify-UAP's, and install one in each condo. They are not expensive to begin with, and I think at 185+ units (spares too) you will get a fat-fat-fat discount (buy 250 units, get them for 50% perhaps). Of course, charging the condo-owners for this hardware makes only sense to me, so you keep it out of the implementation project.

    Then, ideally, you could create 185 VLANs so you can control each condo separately (switch them off if they misbehave/shut down that part of your internet when the condo is empty/setup parental block lists per condo if they require so because of young kids, disable internet on a time schedule if they request so, block VLAN23 scriptkiddies on visit @ grandpa from trying to hack VLAN167, etc: all things you can't do with one huge LAN & DHCP - you can do DHCP within each VLAN, however).

    Of course, and this is what I don't know but I am sure the seniors in here do know: is there a way of connecting 185 VLAN's without having to use 185 physical NIC's?

    Finally: you for sure will want CARP, and I really think you will need multiple 200 lines. Ideally you'll setup traffic shaper between them to balance the load.

    This' all noob-thinking. Seniors in 3-2-1 to shoot me  ;D ;D ;D

    Pretty much nails it on the head. Nice to see an eternal noob outsmarting his masters ;-)

    In this particular case you need a cable run in each condo. That cable should be connected to a ubiquity AP, to provide internet service in each condo separately. Then on the other end, it should be connected to a layer2 managed switch, to isolate each AP onto its own VLAN.

    That switch should be connected to pfsense, each VLAN should have its own interface on pfsense. Yes that means all 185 interfaces declared on pfsense, but all of them combined over a trunk (tagged) link to the switch, which will handle the "separation" of traffic according to its VLAN.

    It's the only way to do this project, every other suggestion/idea is a disaster in the works.

    You don't put separate houses/appartments/tents on the same subnet. EVER! Two reasons for that: 1) network isolation and 2) broadcast traffic. Each appartment should have its own /24 subnet. The reason for that is that you set it once and forget it. It's not like the building will get any sizable increase in the number of appartments. Each /24 has 253 usable addresses, more than enough for any appartment.

    Having every appartment separate means that you can traffic shape/limit each appartment separately plus traffic is kept isolated in between them. It will take a LOT of work to set everything up on pfsense, but it's a set up once and then forget it investment. In the process you will have learned something new.

    You will need a cold standby for the switch, as well as a carp cluster for pfsense. The reason you can't have two switches on warm (active) standby is that each AP will only have 1 ethernet port, so you cannot connect both switches at the same time. You can however keep them both wired up to pfsense, and all you'll have to do in case one fails is to unplug the APs from one and plug them into the other and power it up.

    There is no other way to do it correctly, please stop wasting your time looking for solutions that WILL end up in a disaster.


  • LAYER 8 Netgate

    @jflsakfja:

    It's the only way to do this project, every other suggestion/idea is a disaster in the works.

    Not.

    You don't put separate houses/appartments/tents on the same subnet. EVER! Two reasons for that: 1) network isolation

    that depends on whether you are giving everyone a public and a firewall or, like OP wants, a wireless private network.

    185 stations is not that many.  To do it with VLANs and public IPs you'd need a /22 and at least a /30 to every unit.

    If issuing privates, there is no reason not to use one subnet, DHCP, and private vlans to isolate the users from each other.

    Also, since we are talking about pfSense, you have a lot more flexibility for traffic shaping when you're dealing with one interface to the customers.  OP is going to need shaping, or at least limiting, guaranteed.

    and 2) broadcast traffic.

    Yes.  Though 185 still isn't that huge.  We're talking all gig.  With proper layer 2 isolation you're not dealing with broadcasts from all the clients - just the gateway and whatever other servers might be set to unprotected.

    Then, ideally, you could create 185 VLANs so you can control each condo separately (switch them off if they misbehave/shut down that part of your internet when the condo is empty

    config t
    int eth 2/1/34
    disable

    Or put the port on a VLAN with a web redirect that goes to a page telling them who they need to call to get reactivated.

    /setup parental block lists per condo if they require so because of young kids,

    I would never, ever subject my employer to such liability.

    Each appartment should have its own /24 subnet. The reason for that is that you set it once and forget it. It's not like the building will get any sizable increase in the number of appartments. Each /24 has 253 usable addresses, more than enough for any appartment.

    Eliminating the wireless requirements, I'd give them all a wired public, lock it down (DHCP snooping, etc), and be done with it.  pfSense for shaping/limiting, NAT off.  And maybe develop a preconfigured consumer router to sell/rent/lease/recommend.  Or they can run their own pfSense if they want :).  Go all in and give everyone a /56 too.


Log in to reply