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

Routing between LAN on different subnets

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Routing and Multi WAN
6 Posts 3 Posters 1.2k 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.
  • C
    CrackBlue
    last edited by Jan 18, 2016, 12:33 PM Jan 18, 2016, 10:52 AM

    Hello Gurus,

    We have internal webservers that must be only accessible from Internet using port-forwarding on pfSense1 via INTERNET A.    As you can see on the image above, all computers on BUILDING-B that are behind 172.16.0.0/16 network can ping and connect to BUILDING-A computers with gateway pointing to 192.168.251.1/24 (pfSense0),  but cannot connect to our INTERNAL WEBSERVERS which have gateway 192.168.250.1/24 (pfSense1).  What I wanted is that the "BLDGB-WORKSATION-1 (172.16.1.1/16) can traverse and connect to our Internal Servers without changing its configurations and without utilizing the port-forwarding feature on pfSense1.  Is it possible? Can you please provide information to do this?

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • C
      chris4916
      last edited by Jan 18, 2016, 12:03 PM

      I'm not sure to really understand what you mean with the various gateways and network. I'll need to read it again more than 3 time because so far, this is still unclear.

      One point that may help: in order for devices to reach networks that are not behind their default gateway, you need to tell where to go, i.e. what is the gateway that will allow to reach this network.

      e.g., if you want to reach 192.168.250.20 from 172.16.1.2, you have to tell 192.168.250.20 that gateway for this network is 192.168.251.1
      Well…. this would have worked if this gateway was within the right subnet. Such 192.168.251.0/24 IP here is quite surprising. It is on purpose, typo or real mistake ?

      either .250  or not /24  ::)

      hummm, I don't understand how this network works  :-[

      Jah Olela Wembo: Les mots se muent en maux quand ils indisposent, agressent ou blessent.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • C
        CrackBlue
        last edited by Jan 18, 2016, 12:38 PM Jan 18, 2016, 12:32 PM

        its correct, you misread it, its 192.168.251.10/24 on the image.. :)  thank you for your reply… i guess have to use the port-forwarding feature on pfSense1 from pfSense0 via WAN to connect to the internal webserver

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          chris4916
          last edited by Jan 18, 2016, 1:12 PM

          Oh, reading it again and again, I realize now that you indeed mixed (for some reason still not clear to me) 192.168.250.0/24 and 192.168.251.0/24 on same physical network and switch.

          I still don't understand where this port forwarding would occur but you have to deal with routes so that your server known where to go (192.168.251.1) in order to reach 172.16.0.0/16  (BTW, what a huge number of devices  :o)

          This can be done either adding route on each server you want to reach from 172.16.0.0/16 or adding route at 192.168.250.1 so that flow is redirected to 192.168.251.1.

          Jah Olela Wembo: Les mots se muent en maux quand ils indisposent, agressent ou blessent.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • C
            CrackBlue
            last edited by Jan 18, 2016, 2:03 PM

            Yeah, big indeed, have to deal with it since I am the new guy on an old network that uses /16 which will be corrected soon and running DHCP will be my target for easy management.  Well, to answer your question, computers on Building A where used to be connected to 192.168.250.1 GW, but when the new INTERNET-B came in, they wanted Building A Computers should use INTERNET-B to lighten up the Internet bandwidth usage for the INTERNAL WEBSERVERS.  Thats why I have mixed network on the same physical network when they installed a CAT6 backbone from BUILDING A to BUILDING B.  To cut the story short, i have successfully done what i wanted.  I just added a new gateway (192.168.250.1) on pfSense0 on the interface facing pfSense1 and statically add outbound NAT rule mapping using the new gateway i defined to each INTERNAL WEBSERVERS ip address. And it works like a charm.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • J
              johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
              last edited by Jan 18, 2016, 4:16 PM Jan 18, 2016, 4:13 PM

              your 2950 is only layer 2, it will not do L3 that I am aware of..

              so you have 250 and 251/24 running on the same layer 2 or do you have this setup with vlans using pfsense to route these?

              Why don't you just connect your buildings with a transit network between your pfsense and then you could just use policy based routing for any client in building A to use the internet in B, or you could have B use internet A if you wanted, etc..

              Since you show a client on that 251 segment this is clearly not a transit network.

              If you connected your building correctly, simple routing/firewall rules to allow whatever you want to use whatever wan connection in either location.  You could have multiple networks in each location, etc.

              Done correctly you would never have to change a clients gateway, done correctly you could even leverage the wan in each location for load balancing, nor would you have to do any natting between your rfc1918 address space, etc. etc.

              transitconnectbuilding.png
              transitconnectbuilding.png_thumb

              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 2.8, 24.11

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              1 out of 6
              • First post
                1/6
                Last post
              Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                consent.not_received