Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Pol Hallen
:-| 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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Pol Hallen
/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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Pol Hallen
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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Moshe Katz
>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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Pol Hallen
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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Moshe Katz
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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Pol Hallen
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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Steve Yates
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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Pol Hallen
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

Re: [pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Moshe Katz
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

[pfSense] nat or routing?

2016-09-09 Thread Pol Hallen
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