Lan / Wan IPs

[bobthuglife]

Hi everybody !

I have a simple question.

I set up a server with pfsense (proxy, captive portal) and this is my network below.

-I have a router (box) with 192.168.1.1 as IP connected to the first Nic card
-I put 192.168.1.250/24 for WAN ip
-I put 192.168.0.250/20 for LAN ip so my server ip is 192.168.0.250 with an access point (captive portal) into the secon Nic card
-My DHCP server ip range is: from 192.168.2.1 to 192.168.15.254

I tested and everything works.

But is it a problem or not to put 192.168.1.250/24 for the WAN ip and 192.168.0.250/20 for the LAN ip ? is there a conflict even if dhcp range is from 192.168.2.1 to 192.168.15.254 ?

BOX –---------------------------------PFSENSE SERVER-------------------------------ACCESS POINT
192.168.1.1                  192.168.1.250/24      192.168.0.250/20              from 192.168.2.1 to 192.168.15.254

Thank you so much for your help ;-)

[Derelict]

If anything works it's a fluke.

192.168.0.0/20 covers 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.15.255.  That includes 192.168.1.0/24.

Choose subnets that don't overlap/conflict with each other.

[bobthuglife]

Hi Derelict

Thank you for your help.

If i put 192.168.2.1/20 for the lan IP and i set up my dhcp server as:  from 192.168.2.10 to 192.168.15.254
and i let my ip wan as 192.168.1.250/24

is it good ?

Thanks !

[johnpoz]

Dude why do you think you need /20 ???  And sorry but 192.168.2.1/20 network range is 192.168.0.1 to 192.168.15.254 so that overlaps with your WAN

You do understand that /20 is 4000 address, do you really have need of 4000 addresses on your lan network??

[Derelict]

It doesn't matter what you use in the /20.  It covers 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.15.255.  You need to put all other networks OUTSIDE that range.  An example for 192.168.8.0 attached.  Still in the same subnet.


[bobthuglife]

yes i know it is about 3500 IPs !

i can reduce but i need at least 1000 IPs because it is for a beach with some events during the summer…

[doktornotor]

Dude, just pick something out of 192.168.x.x range entirely.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918

[Derelict]

SMH - You might want to hire someone to design this for you.

[bobthuglife]

ok thank you for your help !
I appreciate…

i will put 192.168.2.1/22 for the lan IP and i set up my dhcp server as:  from 192.168.2.10 to 192.168.4.254
and i let my ip wan as 192.168.1.250/24

Have a nice day

[johnpoz]

So your going to have 1000 devices on how many AP?  On the same segment?  You might want to have multiple segments if you need 1000 plus devices.

And your going to run this connection behind a double nat?  What do you have in front of pfsense doing nat that its on 192.168.1.1??  Can it handle the number of sessions 1000 devices would create.. I don't think so if its some soho device.  Shoot a p2p client can take down many soho routers.

Im with Derelict on this - I think your over your head if you don't even understand basic network masks and trying to design something that 1000 devices will be using.

Dude sorry but /22 is 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.3.255, again your overlapping..  You just don't understand subnetting at all I take it..

If you want to use a /22 mask, then your lan could be 192.168.4.1/22 and then set your dhcp scope from 192.168.4.10 to 192.168.7.254

[doktornotor]

Which part of move it out of 192.168.x.x entirely is so horribly hard to get…

[johnpoz]

^ while I agree that would be the simple solution dok, it for sure will not teach him anything ;)

Subnets break at specific points depending on the mask, you can't just take any number and start your network at that mark.

He mentions a beach and needing a 1000 IPs - so how many AP is that?  What kind?  And what is in front of this pfsense..  What I don't want to happen is your network crash and burn and you blame it on pfsense.  Which can handle 1000 devices without breaking a sweat if on the right hardware.  What are you running pfsense on?  What is your bandwidth that these 1000 users are going to share?

[bobthuglife]

Finally I follow doktornotor advice, and I put 10.10.0.1 for LAN and it works !

(6 Cisco AP behind a switch)

[doktornotor]

@bobthuglife:

(6 Cisco AP behind a switch)

Hope you don't mean the Linksys/Belkin "Ciscos".

[bobthuglife]

Cisco Aironet 702i

[Derelict]

With an even distribution of users (wishful thinking) and typical 5GHz take you're looking at 100 associations per radio on 2.4 and 66 associations on 5GHz.

I have no real-world experience with the Cisco 702s.  They ought to be able to handle it.  I know ruckus 7372s and 7982s have no problem with that number of associations.  Hopefully you also have a controller.  I think there are wireless controllers built into current Cisco switches.

[bobthuglife]

normally, i have 100-200 connections per day but sometimes (1 or 2 days per month, i have an event between 500-800 persons can come this day and they want to Tag or put Selfie on facebook  :(

[johnpoz]

6 AP with 1000 clients is = 166 clients each if you got an pure equal dist, good luck with that.  Those are controller based, you have controller setup?  Those are indoor APs - thought you said this was on a beach?

What kind of area are you talking?  Those ae only 2x2 AP.. Not going to be the best for lots of clients each, etc.

There is a huge difference of 200 a DAY over 6 AP compared to 800 at the same time sharing those 6.

[bobthuglife]

When i say 800 clients it is a maximum. They will not be there in the same time, because we are opening from 1pm to 8pm and maybe 300-400 it is the maximum in one hour.

this is a great beach, and people will be scattered equally because they can not stand in one place. So i think 6 cisco ap with 300-400 persons at the maximum (because they stay 2 or 3 hours maximum), i think it will be good… and it is only for 1 or 2 days per month !

they won't donwload, only go on facebook or read emails.

[johnpoz]

how do you have these indoor AP mounted at a beach?  They must actually be inside structures?