Assistance with an internal port forward

Trel

"If I point my DNS to the one server internally, I remove the ability to reach ALL other servers with the same name."

Huh??? You just create a record for mydomain.com that points to your internal IP on your internal dns..

Maybe I worded that poorly

Externally
domain.com:80 -> Server A
domain.com:81 -> Server B
domain.com:82 -> Server C

If I point the DNS for domain.com to any one of those servers, I relinquish the ability to have the other two accessible.
What I'm trying to do is point the DNS internally to the firewall and then use NAT to forward the ports back to the correct servers.

EDIT: added pictures of the rule that works and the rule that doesn't.
(But the rule that works is too broad, I want to be specific as I don't want to forward ALL attempts at 10068, just the ones that target the firewall itself).

intnat_works.png_thumb

intnat_doesntwork.png_thumb

johnpoz

why not just do

server1.domain.tld publicIP –- serverA privateIP-A
server2.domain.tld publicIP --- serverB privateIP-B
server3.domain.tld publicIP --- serverC privateIP-C

then on internal
server1.domain.tld privateIP-A
server2.domain.tld privateIP-B
server3.domain.tld privateIP-C

Much cleaner solution..

If you don't want to use the :port in your url just setup reverse proxy on pfsense.

Trel

@johnpoz:

why not just do

server1.domain.tld publicIP –- serverA privateIP-A
server2.domain.tld publicIP --- serverB privateIP-B
server3.domain.tld publicIP --- serverC privateIP-C

then on internal
server1.domain.tld privateIP-A
server2.domain.tld privateIP-B
server3.domain.tld privateIP-C

Much cleaner solution..

If you don't want to use the :port in your url just setup reverse proxy on pfsense.

If I was doing it from scratch, I would have done it that way, but I'm not. There's hard coded things going years back that used to all run off a single server.

I know it's not best practice, but it's what I need to do for my scenario.

Based on the pictures I uploaded, you can see there HAS to be some way to make it work given my constraints. I just need to find out what it is.
Considering it works with the destination being "Any", then there must be some destination(s) that will make it work.

(And for what it's worth, I'm pushing to have some of that changed so I CAN use best practices)

muswellhillbilly

@Trel:

If I was doing it from scratch, I would have done it that way, but I'm not. There's hard coded things going years back that used to all run off a single server.

I know it's not best practice, but it's what I need to do for my scenario.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'hard coded things', but if you just need to resolve one host internally then surely a DNS override would work just as well. You just need to enter the address for one host - how hard can it be?

Trel

@muswellhillbilly:

@Trel:

If I was doing it from scratch, I would have done it that way, but I'm not. There's hard coded things going years back that used to all run off a single server.

I know it's not best practice, but it's what I need to do for my scenario.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'hard coded things', but if you just need to resolve one host internally then surely a DNS override would work just as well. You just need to enter the address for one host - how hard can it be?

Ok, I have two things off the top of my head that are hard coded.

One is hardcoded to look at: http://domain.com:8080/path_to_xml/file.xml
One is hardcoded to look at: http://domain.com:10060/stream128.m3u

The webserver which serves the XML is one one server, the IceCast server which serves the m3u is on a second server.

How would I achieve this with a DNS override?

Pfsense: I can change
Servers Themselves: I can change
DNS: I can change
Devices that look at those URLs and Ports: I cannot change

What are you suggesting I do here?

(I'm sorry if I sound a bit snappy here, I'm just not sure how I'm supposed to point DNS to two different locations for the same name without NAT as well. And I'm dealing with an excellent bug in my registrar's UI that has locked me out of making any DNS changes at all on two of my domains. Didn't meant to take out my bad day on you)

Derelict

I try to tell people that domain.com shouldn't be used as a hostname. I always lose. Whoever did that painted you into a corner.

So you're saying both those URLs need to go to different destination servers?

Yes, you'll need a port forward. Doing it with the clients on the same subnet as the servers is going to be pretty hokey. You see, NAT is a router function and you don't route same-subnet traffic so anything that "works" will be a hack.

My recommendation is to put the servers (which you say you can change) on a different subnet and NAT port forwards will work fine. But you've already said you can't do that either.

You might try enabling the NAT destination IP again and and checking Static route filtering in System > Advanced > Firewall/NAT tab .

Trel

@Derelict:

I try to tell people that domain.com shouldn't be used as a hostname. I always lose. Whoever did that painted you into a corner.

So you're saying both those URLs need to go to different destination servers?

Yes, you'll need a port forward. Doing it with the clients on the same subnet as the servers is going to be pretty hokey. You see, NAT is a router function and you don't route same-subnet traffic so anything that "works" will be a hack.

My recommendation is to put the servers (which you say you can change) on a different subnet and NAT port forwards will work fine. But you've already said you can't do that either.

You might try enabling the NAT destination IP again and and checking Static route filtering in System > Advanced > Firewall/NAT tab .

Well it's not domain.com specifically, I don't think they want me mentioning their real one. But I agree. My home setup has an internal domain, but I use s1.trel.co, s2.trel.co, etc to separate them even when they all point to the same IP externally.

For the static route filtering option, it refers to defined interfaces, not physical ones, right?

Do you have any idea at all why the NAT rule I have in the picture I uploaded earlier works when it's destination is * vs any one IP/Alias?

EDIT: the static route filtering option didn't make a difference, if it absolutely can't be done without forwarding ALL destinations at that port, I'll have to tell them it can't be done.

Derelict

If I have time I'll lab it tonight. I don't know if you need to enable NAT reflection or another hack to make it work.

Just so I'm clear you want:

pfSense: 192.168.1.1/24
ifAlias VIP: 192.168.1.2
Host 1: 192.168.1.100
Server 1: 192.168.1.200

Port forward connections from 192.168.1.100 to 192.168.1.2:8000 to 192.168.1.200:8000 instead.

johnpoz

You want a simpler solution.. Run those services on the same box - since the moron that hard coded a single name thought that was how it worked.. Also agree using a domain name as FQDN to point to a host is a bad ide.. host.domain.tld should always be used..

Fix the hard code.. Which again is BAD idea…

muswellhillbilly

I'm in agreement with JP on this one. The more you try to work around the bad decisions made before you inherited this system, the more convoluted and unmanageable your environment will become. You have an opportunity to fix things here rather than just work around them. Otherwise you'll only make your life and the life of guy who eventually inherits your network more miserable in the long run.

Puts me in mind of the following classic image: http://blog.thingsdesigner.com/uploads/id/tree_swing_development_requirements.jpg

johnpoz

^ exactly… You also have some moron hard coding ports in the url?? This is also really bad practice if you ask me...

Also lets clarify "hardcode" your saying the application has http://domain.com:8080/path_to_xml/file.xml in its code, and to change that has to be recompiled? Or are you saying its in the registry and or conf or ini file that controls the application.. And you just don't want to push out the update to the configuration?

Trel

@johnpoz:

^ exactly… You also have some moron hard coding ports in the url?? This is also really bad practice if you ask me...

Also lets clarify "hardcode" your saying the application has http://domain.com:8080/path_to_xml/file.xml in its code, and to change that has to be recompiled? Or are you saying its in the registry and or conf or ini file that controls the application.. And you just don't want to push out the update to the configuration?

It's not that they don't want to push out the configuration, but that the devices it's on need to have the configuration changed, which can't be done remotely. (Not that they don't want to push out config, but that there's no mechanism to do so here). An example using the Icecast server. It's a playlist included with the device that has the proper URI to the Icecast server. I could change it in the config on their devices, but I can't do that without the device. Remotely changing it isn't an option. On the one I have sitting next to me, I already did, but the guy three states over, not so much.

However, they won't be available to change any time in the near future. If I change it to multiple subdomains off the hostname, I break it for everyone who's currently remote. If I don't, I'm apparently breaking (or rather, not making it work) for everyone who is local at the moment.

Only possible workable solution if port forwarding is not an option is to use DNS to make multiple names, and deal with the remote ones as they come in.
It looks like it's going to be a case of "It's definitely not the best way, it's just the only way".

Trel

For anyone wondering what I ended up doing was setting up DNS entries for the different servers.

Externally, they all point to the same IP, internally, to the different servers.
As I get my hands on the devices with the old config, I'll update them accordingly.

Since it's all going off a single IP, the external devices which I can't updated would work just as well with domain.com as with server01.domain.com when it comes to the port forward externally.