Can't access internet from LAN
-
K I have following setup with my pfsense 2.2.2 as a VM on xenserver 6.5
4 interfaces:
WAN (WAN): public (public ip)
OPT1 (WAN): private ( 10.121.175.196) This gatway points to another private network
LANGENERAL (LAN): 10.22.0.1/24
OP2SECURE (LAN): 10.22.1.1/24On each of the LAN interfaces I have firewall rules that allow any to any source and destination traffic.
I have the Outband Automatic NAT enabled which adds for each of the LAN interface subnets a NAT on WAN and OPT1.
NAT Automatic rules:
Interface Source Source Port Destination Destination Port NAT Address
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
icon WAN 127.0.0.0/8 10.22.0.0/24 10.22.1.0/24 10.22.22.128/25 10.22.22.128/25 * * 500 WAN address
icon WAN 127.0.0.0/8 10.22.0.0/24 10.22.1.0/24 10.22.22.128/25 10.22.22.128/25 * * * WAN address
icon OPT1 127.0.0.0/8 10.22.0.0/24 10.22.1.0/24 10.22.22.128/25 10.22.22.128/25 * * 500 OPT1 address
icon OPT1 127.0.0.0/8 10.22.0.0/24 10.22.1.0/24 10.22.22.128/25 10.22.22.128/25 * * * OPT1 addressFor gateways I also have the WAN setup as default.
I am not sure what I am doing wrong but I can't access internet via WAN from any of the LAN network machines. Weird thing is that I can ping an outside ip no problem but any other access fails.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
-
You didn't do anything obvious like specify a gateway for your LAN interfaces?
-
Nope no gateway for LAN.
From PFSense box I can access outside, but not from the machine inside LAN.
-
What are your clients, Windows/Linux/iPhone? They are set to use 10.22.0.1 as their gateway? When you say they can't use the Internet, is it really they can't resolve any hostnames? Can you go anywhere just by IP address?
-
Clients are Linux Centos 7 boxes, and yes they are set to use 10.22.0.1 as their gateway.
I can't go anywhere with just ip address. for example if I do : curl 173.194.219.103 -v (google.com)
I would get a timeout error after certain period.but if I do a ping: ping 173.194.219.103
I would get OK ping response -
And what does a traceroute look like.. you sure your going out your wan.. and not your opt1?
Do you have a gateway defined in your lan rules?
Can you post a screenshot - so much easier to read then text copy of the stuff. Or manual description of the rules
-
No middlemen like Squid, squidGuard, Snort or Suricata?
-
No middleman and I was finally able to make a connection to outside but connection is super slow, it took longer then 10 seconds for a response and then it came back in multiple slow parts.
I did a curl http://www.whatsmyip.net/ -v
and it did return the data from it but it was super slow.I attached the rule that I ended up finally adding, but this does not seem like a proper way .
 -
Your rules on your LAN interface should generally:
Pass specifically the things you need them to access (for example local DNS servers)
Block more generally things you don't want them to access (for example LANGENERAL net to OP2SECURE net)
Pass everything else (internet). For your this just use protocol any, not TCP/UDP for starters. -
K I understand that but why such a slow responses from the internet, we are on really fast internet connection ?
-
Different issue. You need to isolate exactly what is slow. Is it DNS? Actual traffic? What?
-
And why are you messing around with floating rules on LANGENERAL out? Delete them all and put the LANGENERAL rules on the LANGENERAL interface.
Save the floating rules until you understand how rules work in pfSense. A rule on LANGENERAL out has NOTHING to do with hosts on LANGENERAL accessing the internet.
You need to read and actually understand this. Particularly the part about what interface a rule should be placed upon:
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Firewall_Rule_Troubleshooting
Also, why are you playing with things like state types? Just leave the stuff alone unless you can articulate the specific problem with the states you're trying to solve and you get consensus that it's the right thing to do.
-
I added the floating rules to try and fix the problem. I do have the rules on LANGENERAL and I had them originally but it wasn't working so I've been trying to see if floating ones on wan out would work. Which kind of did but requests and responses are way way slow.
-
If you read and understood the Firewall link above you would know that that rule would not fix anything. You really do have to understand these concepts if you are to be successful at maintaining this firewall.
If you place your rules correctly it will work. Now nobody knows what you clicked or set to try to "fix" the problem. I recommend you reset to factory and start over. Go step by step. Start with LAN and WAN and add the other interfaces one at a time.
You can backup your config so you can get back to the current state almost instantly.
-
And it's XenServer I just saw…
Not currently the best choice for FreeBSD/pfSense.
You are probably chasing phantoms in your rules when your problem is really in Xen/FreeBSD:
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=85797.0
-
It must be something with xen pfsense combination , I stripped down all my interface to only two wan -> lan and allowed any to any rules on lan …
and was still experiencing still same slow responses and traffic.Any idea when this is going to be fixed for xen ?
-
You can fix it now. Look at the link above. There's a better summary that is exactly what you have to do:
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=88467.msg512128#msg512128
-
Oh man, that was it, I wasted two days chasing the rules and in the end it was the driver problem this. Thank you :)
-
And here I was, thinking that putting "IMPORTANT" in the title would make people with Xen read it :p Glad you got it sorted.
-
Yeah I know I didn't even look in the Xen forum, didn't think it was the xen issue originally.
-
Yeah I know I didn't even look in the Xen forum, didn't think it was the xen issue originally.
Oh well, at least there is a central place for reference commands, so people can be pointed towards it when they have questions :)
How is the performance? -
its a VIF UUID's issue.
i've spend last month a 3 days looking for the solution.
