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

    Multi-WAN - Internet traffic only going in/out one gateway

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Routing and Multi WAN
    10 Posts 3 Posters 993 Views
    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
      esseebee
      last edited by

      I'm at a loss about this.  I've created a gateway group to combine our 2 WAN connections that connect to 2 separate ISPs. According to traffic graph (and seeing no difference in speed test results), all of the internet traffic is going in/out one of WAN1.  That is, with the exception of pings from WAN2 to the alternate gateway monitor IP address.  No other firewall rules listed above the load balancing gateway group.  Where did I mess up or where should I be looking?  Thanks in advance.

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

        https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi-WAN

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

          Thanks. That's the guide I used to configure the Multi-WAN. It's still only pumping traffic in/out of WAN1.  Any ideas of what might be causing this?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • DerelictD
            Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
            last edited by

            Without seeing what you've actually done, no. No clue.  Use the guide to determine what screens/info you should post.

            Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
            A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
            DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
            Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

              Sorry.  I was hoping for an obvious known issue that would be quick.  Here's the scenario.

              WAN1 (PPPoE w/ Static IP) + WAN2 (DHCP from modem) –> Pfsense 2.1.5 -- > LAN
              Windows Server 2012 running DHCP and DNS

              Top FW rule on LAN tab is for internal routing using this - https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Bypassing_Policy_Routing
              It points to an alias for our internal network addresses.

              The next 3 active LAN FW rules are for

              1. load balancing to the gateway group.
              2. failover to WAN1
              3. failover to WAN2

              I've attached screenshots of the FW rules, gateway groups and firewall rules pages.  Please let me know if there are others that I need to attach.  I very much appreciate your help.

              ![Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.54.15 am.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.54.15 am.png)
              ![Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.54.15 am.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.54.15 am.png_thumb)
              ![Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.57.55 am.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.57.55 am.png)
              ![Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.57.55 am.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.57.55 am.png_thumb)
              ![Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.58.20 am.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.58.20 am.png)
              ![Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.58.20 am.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-05-26 at 11.58.20 am.png_thumb)

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

                remove the bottom 2 rules (they are pointless)
                might as well remove 2 out of 3 gateway groups (they are probably pointless, unless you use them on a different interface for whatever reason)

                don't try a single tcp stream … balancing doesnt mean combining on a single download. use a download manager or torrents to see if loadbalancing works or not

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

                  Thanks for your insight.  I agree that those rules and the extra gateway groups were unnecessary.  I removed them, but still had the issue.  I discovered that AON was being used and there was a static route for WAN1, but not WAN2.  I added the static route for LAN traffic to WAN2 and it worked!

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

                    AON=automatic outbound NAT | it's got nothing todo with routes ?

                    if AON, is not working on a standard multi-wan setup, then chances are that something else isn't configured as it should

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • DerelictD
                      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                      last edited by

                      I think he's referring to Manual Outbound NAT (Also referred to as Advanced Outbound NAT (AON), but not Automatic Outbound NAT (also AON) (clear as mud)) and that there were not outbound NAT rules defined for the second WAN.  After definition, it worked as expected.

                      ![Screen Shot 2015-05-27 at 12.30.45 AM.png](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-05-27 at 12.30.45 AM.png)
                      ![Screen Shot 2015-05-27 at 12.30.45 AM.png_thumb](/public/imported_attachments/1/Screen Shot 2015-05-27 at 12.30.45 AM.png_thumb)

                      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                        That is correct, Derelict.  Sorry for the confusion.  These are new acronyms for me.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.