Thanks for your reply, I agree with you that the setup is kinda weird, and
that connecting that subnet directly to pfSense is better, but the problem
here is that this subnet is connect via a leased line.
 Besides, I can see that happening anywhere, a static route to some subnet
that's behind its own gateway !!! it happens alot !!.
And btw, I tried enabling static routing filtering, but didn't work

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:54 PM, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I seriously doubt this is a bug; you're doing strange, arguably wrong
> things with your routing.
>
> IF: you want pfSense to arbitrate all the traffic between
> 192.168.20.0/24 and 192.168.30.0/24, it is inadvisable to use the
> setup you currently have.  Instead of having the 192.168.30.0/24
> gateway on the same L2 broadcast as 192.168.20.0/24, place it on a
> different interface on the pfSense box, whether by physical interface
> or VLAN (if your switch supports trunking).
>
> IF: you just want 192.168.20.0/24 and 192.168.30.0/24 to communicate
> freely w/o going through the pfSense box, the way you have things
> configured now stipulates you'll have to place a static route on all
> 192.168.20.0/24 boxes pointing at 192.168.20.253 for the
> 192.168.30.0/24 subnet.  The hosts in 192.168.30.0/24 shouldn't have
> to make any changes, as their gateway should take care of the routing.
>
> The classical (but often ignored in SOHO setups due to cost) solution
> would be to place each subnet on its own switch, each of which is
> connected up to a central router, which stands between them and the
> firewall (preemptive apologies to those using variable-width fonts):
>
>            Internet
>      pub.??? ->|
>             pfSense
> 192.168.XXX.1 ->|
> 192.168.XXX.2 ->|
>                R
> 192.168.20.1 ->/ \<- 192.168.30.1
>              /   \
>            S-     -S
>           /|\     /|\
>          / | \   / | \
>         .20/24  .30/24
>
> The first solution just shift the router functionality up to the
> pfSense box, since pfSense does work quite well as a router.
>
> Finally, the least advisable (in my opinion) approach would be to set
> "System->Advanced->Static Route Filtering" in the pfSense web UI.  It
> will most likely enable you to do precisely what you are trying to do,
> but given the current evidence of your network-fu will likely be the
> hardest to troubleshoot should something go wrong.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


> Hello everyone,
>> I've a problem with 1.2.1-RC1 which is very weird.
>> I've a simple setup that have pfSense as an internet gateway for two
>> subnets ...the setup is as follows:
>>
>>               192.168.10.0/24                        196.168.20.0/24
>>                           |
>> |
>>                           |
>> |
>>                  -------------------  192.168.20.253       ---------
>>                  | 10.0 gateway  | ----------------------| switch |
>>                  -------------------
>> ---------
>>
>> |
>>
>> 192.168.20.1
>>
>> -------------
>>                                                                     |
>> pfSense  |-------internet
>>
>> -------------
>>
>> Now here's the problem, obviously I need a static route entry that routes
>> traffic to 192.168.10.0 network through 192.168.20.253 gateway so that
>> 20.0 network connect to 10.0 network and vice versa. After configuring the
>> firewall properly , 10.0 network are able to ping hosts in 20.0 network and
>> vice versa....but when a host behind the gateway "in 10.0" network tries to
>> connect to any host  in 20.0 network, the request gets routed correctly and
>> it reaches 20.0 but the reply "which should be redirected by pfsense to the
>> gateway "gets blocked by pfsense and I see that in the log.
>> Now, I tried everything, I added a first rule in the NAT interface to
>> allow all traffic from 20.0 to 10.0 it didn't work, I tried to even remove
>> ALL the rules and add a rule that allows from anyone to anyone using any
>> protocl, but to veil :( ..the log shows that such packets "ex from
>> 192.168.20.5 to 192.168.10.2 tcp " are dropped due to "default deny all"
>> ..It only works when I disable the firewall totaly !!.
>> I suspect that this is a bug, please help , it's a very basic setup where
>> I need to route packets through another gateway !!
>> --
>> Ahmed Abdalla
>> --Systems Engineer
>> Linux-Plus Information Systems L.L.C
>> Tel : +20 2 2527 6616
>> EXT : 806
>> Fax : +20 2 2526 1055
>> Mobile : +20 10 688 9009
>> email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> website : http://www.linux-plus.com
>>
>



-- 
Ahmed Abdalla
--Systems Engineer
Linux-Plus Information Systems L.L.C
Tel : +20 2 2527 6616
EXT : 806
Fax : +20 2 2526 1055
Mobile : +20 10 688 9009
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website : http://www.linux-plus.com

Reply via email to