Re: [pfSense] Traffic routing issue
What does the allow rule on the restricted vlan and the NAT rule look like? On Dec 11, 2014 11:24 PM, Ryan Clough ryan.clo...@dsic.com wrote: I am hoping that one of you out there can assist me with this rather interesting problem I am having. Let me set the stage. I am running the latest stable version of pfSense: 2.1.5-RELEASE (amd64) built on Mon Aug 25 07:44:45 EDT 2014 FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p16 I am running transparent Squid and Squidguard, and all IP ranges have access to use the proxy. I have two WAN connections, each with a handful of public IPs. I have created an IP alias virtual IP of one of my public IPs on WAN1, which is used to NAT to a web server. We have an internal DNS server that resolves the domain name of a web server to the local LAN IP address. So, all computers on unrestricted VLANs access the web server without having to hit the pfSense router at all. This works as expected and the valid certificate is served and the web page loads. We have one restricted VLAN that is used for guest WiFi access and this VLAN is assigned external DNS servers and therefore resolve the domain name to the public IP. Now my problem. When connected to the guest WiFi on the restricted VLAN and attempting to access the web server on its public IP, which is assigned to a virtual IP on WAN1, I get served the certificate from the pfSense router. I can tell that this is the pfSense self-signed certificate because of the details of the certificate displayed in the warning. I also get this behavior if I force a computer on an unrestricted VLAN, using the hosts file, to resolve the host name of the web server to its public IP. What is going on here? I can provide more information if needed. Thank you for your time. Ryan Clough Information Systems Decision Sciences International Corporation http://www.decisionsciencescorp.com/ http://www.decisionsciencescorp.com/ This email and its contents are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please report the error to the sender by return email and delete this communication from your records. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Traffic routing issue
What you're sewing is the proxy doing what you've told it to do. When the pc on the lan side (any vlan) requests a connection to a server the proxy makes that request on its behalf and returns the packets sent back from that request. In order for that to happen on a secured connection the proxy must set up a secure connection to he remote server (or in your case other interface server) as well as a separate secure connection between the proxy and the originating client pc. Doing it any other way requires either passing the traffic directly through the firewall or breaking the secure connection. This is one of the consequences of doing NAT. I'm guessing the main complaint is that the firewall cert isn't trusted and triggers browsers. div Original message /divdivFrom: Ryan Clough ryan.clo...@dsic.com /divdivDate:12/12/2014 13:58 (GMT-05:00) /divdivTo: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List list@lists.pfsense.org /divdivSubject: Re: [pfSense] Traffic routing issue /divdiv /divOliver, I apologize, I should have been more clear. The problem is exhibited from all VLANs if I force the use of the web server's public IP. I only just discovered it while testing the guest WiFi on the restricted VLAN. To answer your questions: The pfSense router is not aware of any VLANs, we use a layer 3 switch that sits just inside from the pfSense router that routes traffic that must exit the LAN to the pfSense router. I have attached screen shots of my port forward rule and the auto-generated firewall rule. Thank you very much for your help. Ryan Clough Information Systems Decision Sciences International Corporation On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Oliver Hansen oliver.han...@gmail.com wrote:What does the allow rule on the restricted vlan and the NAT rule look like? On Dec 11, 2014 11:24 PM, quot;Ryan Cloughquot; ryan.clo...@dsic.com wrote: I am hoping that one of you out there can assist me with this rather interesting problem I am having. Let me set the stage. I am running the latest stable version of pfSense: 2.1.5-RELEASE (amd64) built on Mon Aug 25 07:44:45 EDT 2014 FreeBSD 8.3-RELEASE-p16 I am running transparent Squid and Squidguard, and all IP ranges have access to use the proxy. I have two WAN connections, each with a handful of public IPs. I have created an IP alias virtual IP of one of my public IPs on WAN1, which is used to NAT to a web server. We have an internal DNS server that resolves the domain name of a web server to the local LAN IP address. So, all computers on unrestricted VLANs access the web server without having to hit the pfSense router at all. This works as expected and the valid certificate is served and the web page loads. We have one restricted VLAN that is used for guest WiFi access and this VLAN is assigned external DNS servers and therefore resolve the domain name to the public IP. Now my problem. When connected to the guest WiFi on the restricted VLAN and attempting to access the web server on its public IP, which is assigned to a virtual IP on WAN1, I get served the certificate from the pfSense router. I can tell that this is the pfSense self-signed certificate because of the details of the certificate displayed in the warning. I also get this behavior if I force a computer on an unrestricted VLAN, using the hosts file, to resolve the host name of the web server to its public IP. What is going on here? I can provide more information if needed. Thank you for your time. Ryan Clough Information Systems Decision Sciences International Corporation This email and its contents are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please report the error to the sender by return email and delete this communication from your records. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list This email and its contents are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please report the error to the sender by return email and delete this communication from your records.___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
[pfSense] BGP in 2.2
First, can anyone tell me what OpenBGPD pacakge v0.9.3 is based on? I'd like to switch a pair of routers from OpenBSD to pfSense, but I need some recent fixes in OpenBGPD that only made it in for OpenBSD 5.5-RELEASE. Looking at the GIT repo doesn't answer my question in any obvious way. Wait, I take that back... pkg_config.8.xml.amd64 shows a version# in the package filename of 5.2. How do I get that updated? There's been a lot of work done recently, in the 5.4-5.5 timeframe including some critical bugfixes when using CARP. Second, I clearly remember that in the 2.0 days, we were moving away from OpenBGPD to (IIRC) quagga/zebra... but OpenBGPD is the only BGP implementation I'm seeing now. What happened there? Third, is there still no way to run BGP and OSPF on the same system?? -- -Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] OpenVPN connects fine, no internet
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 06:19:37 NZDT +1300, Karl Fife wrote: The VPN should protect from all MITM attacks and snooping between the VPN client and server. This is a great idea, but I find that routing all traffic through VPN causes problems in marginal (lossy or congensted) networks. I'm curious to know if others have also had this pain point, and whether you've had any success by simply sending VPN over TCP. What you are seeing is the additional overhead of the VPN, both in encapsulation and in delay. There is no way around that. I expect tcp to be even worse (but able to detect missing packets). That's the price you pay. Ideally I'd like to have flexible and user-friendly control over what data goes over the VPN and which DNS is used. It happens that one has to look up some hosts of the provider and can't tunnel the DNS, which is always annoying. It is possible that other VPNs, in particular IPsec, have lower overheads. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann http://volker.top.geek.nz/ Please do not CC list postings to me. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list