:-| I'm so sorry Moshe and Steve :-(
an old route config on server was the problem
many thanks for help!!!
Pol
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
/usr/sbin/arp -n
Address HWtype HWaddress Flags Mask
Iface
192.168.10.250 ether 80:1f:02:4b:f9:74 C
wlan0
On 09/09/2016 06:59 PM, Pol Hallen wrote:
From your traceroute results, this looks like it might be related to your
switch(es).
it's a sim
From your traceroute results, this looks like it might be related to your
switch(es).
it's a simple 10/100 switch unmanaged
LAN1 rules
protocolsource portdestportgw
* * * LAN1 addr. 80 *
ipv4lan1 net
>From your traceroute results, this looks like it might be related to your
switch(es).
You said that the first traceroute was from 192.168.10.15 to
192.168.10.250. Both of those are in the same subnet, which means they
should be on the same physical portion of the network.
That traceroute should o
Does the traceroute fail on the first hop, or does it get to the pfSense?
Can you share with us the actual terminal output of the traceroute?
Sure! :)
from 192.168.10.15 IP
traceroute 192.168.10.250 (250 is IP of LAN1)
traceroute to 192.168.10.250 (192.168.10.250), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
Does the traceroute fail on the first hop, or does it get to the pfSense?
Can you share with us the actual terminal output of the traceroute?
--
Moshe Katz
-- mo...@ymkatz.net
-- +1(301)867-3732
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Pol Hallen
wrote:
> In Status/System Logs/Settings check the "Log
In Status/System Logs/Settings check the "Log packets matched from the default block
rules in the ruleset" option and see if the firewall log shows blocked packets.
no dropped packets :-/
Are the interfaces set to block private networks, since you are using those on
all interfaces?
only wa
s
ITS, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On Behalf Of Pol Hallen
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 10:53 AM
To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List ;
mo...@ymkatz.net
Subject: Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?
Hi Moshe,
thanks for all your advices abou
Hi Moshe,
thanks for all your advices about security :-) Very kind!
All you need to do is create rules on each LAN interface that allow
incoming traffic from the other LAN.
- Rule on LAN1 interface:
- Action: "Pass"
- Source: "LAN1 net"
- Destination: "LAN2 net"
- Rule o
Pol,
In this case, all you should need is the appropriate firewall rules (and
simple routing). NAT is not required, and would actually complicate your
setup.
If you pfSense is already set up as the gateway for each LAN, then no
additional routing setup is required.
All you need to do is create r
Hi all :-)
I need to allow traffic from lan1 and lan2 and vice-versa
wan has 192.168.5.0/30
lan1 has 192.168.10.0/24
lan2 has 192.168.1.0/24
wan <---> lan1 <---> switch <---> server <---> clients (same network)
lan2 <---> switch <---> server <---> clients (same network)
do I need to
11 matches
Mail list logo