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

    Windows IPSEC server behind pfSense

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
    6 Posts 4 Posters 1.1k 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.
    • J
      jeffhammett
      last edited by

      I need to put a Windows IPSEC server behind my pfSense firewall. I've read that IPSEC traffic should not be NAT'd so I am trying to determine the best way to do this.

      I have a relatively simple setup with one WAN interface and one LAN interface with multiple VLANs. I do have additional unused interfaces available and have additional unused WAN IPs available from my ISP.

      Can I configure pfSense in some way to not NAT the traffic to this one server?

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • johnpozJ
        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
        last edited by

        why don't you just endpoint the ipsec connection on pfsense?

        An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
        If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
        Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
        SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J
          jeffhammett
          last edited by

          @johnpoz:

          why don't you just endpoint the ipsec connection on pfsense?

          That was my initial thought as well, but management is against it. They don't want to do anything that could make the pfSense unstable taking down the entire network. I'm not sure this is much of a concern, but that is what was decided.

          If I find that we can't easily make it work otherwise, that may become an option again, but for now I've been tasked with doing Windows IPSEC.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • johnpozJ
            johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
            last edited by

            windows??  And you think that is going to be stable? ;) Curious is this to just gain access to the windows box?  Or use as a site to site tunnel?  Endpointing a tunnel behind your edge is going to be PITA.

            There are people running hundreds of tunnels off their pfsense boxes, I don't see how 1 tunnel is going to be a problem..

            An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
            If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
            Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
            SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.11

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • awebsterA
              awebster
              last edited by

              @jeffh:

              @johnpoz:

              why don't you just endpoint the ipsec connection on pfsense?

              That was my initial thought as well, but management is against it. They don't want to do anything that could make the pfSense unstable taking down the entire network. I'm not sure this is much of a concern, but that is what was decided.

              If I find that we can't easily make it work otherwise, that may become an option again, but for now I've been tasked with doing Windows IPSEC.

              Wow…"management" doesn't understand how pfSense works.  You need to educate them!  IPSec is a daemon that runs inside the box.  If the IPSec daemon crashes, for whatever reason, pfSense continues to run unaffected.
              If "management" is so concerned about "taking down" the entire network, a second pfSense box would be a good way to increase availability.  In fact, IPsec would continue to work if one of the pfSense boxes was rebooted for maintenance, or crashed.  Management's windows IPSec solution won't do that! :D

              On to your question...You can setup an external 1:1 NAT to the Windows IPSEC server and open UDP/500, UDP/4500 and protocol ESP.  That should cover just about any scenario.  You might have issues with the NAT, client mights need to run IPSec with NAT Traversal option in this scenario.

              –A.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • KOMK
                KOM
                last edited by

                Wow…"management" doesn't understand...

                NO WAY!!!!!!!!

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