Recommended Posts

If you forwarded 139 and 445 tcp to your 2k8r2 server and its sharing and allowing guest then you should be able to access via \\ipaddressofpfsensewan from 0 network. Use the run box and go directly there your never going to be able to use a browselist for this sort of access.

I tried this but an error message popped up saying that the IP I was trying to access was unavailable. Anyways this is no biggie any more, I have added wireless access to the .1 subnet (PSK encrypted with access control enabled, WPS disabled, nice and secure), this is working fine now for the purposes I require.

For now it appears that my network configuration is just as I would like it though I have a little problem regarding pfSense...

It appears that if the ISP supplied router is restarted (which occasionally needs to be done as periodically the web-based setup stops working and wont display the logon screen again until the router is restarted) pfSense doesn't automatically reconnect, despite having a statically assigned IP leading me to believe it's not a DHCP lease issue, leaving all machines in .1 without internet. Is there any way to automate reconnection on pfSense after a router restart/connection drop?

If pfsense has a static IP on its wan --- Which I somehow doubt to be honest, do you mean you setup a dhcp reservation for it on the isp router?

What I would assume is happening is on reboot of isp router your pfsense is getting a different wan IP, say 192.168.100.x

Because if pfsense is static IP assigned on its wan, as long as the network is on - then you would be connected..

Lets see this static assigned pfsense wan setting

post-14624-0-81071700-1359983841.png

And when its not working - lets see the wan status

post-14624-0-41270400-1359983846.png

If pfsense has a static IP on its wan --- Which I somehow doubt to be honest, do you mean you setup a dhcp reservation for it on the isp router?

Yes, I do mean there is a DHCP reservation for it on the ISP router, not a statically assigned IP on the WAN interface, my mistake...

Here is the WAN status:

post-476658-0-43316000-1359990407.jpg

As you can see here the WAN interface is using DHCP, should I change this setting to assign a static IP to resolve this issue?

post-476658-0-16079500-1359990432.jpg

I don't see the reason for the dhcp on the wan and you want it to be static.

What is the lease time? it should work the way you have it set, even if the isp router reboots - there could be some down time until the isp router finishes reboot, etc.

But you could have a problem with the interface going offline when the router reboots and then coming up again as the ports go active but not getting an IP right away if router has not finished booting, etc.

Couldn't hurt to make it static - so if your isp routers dhcp is say 192.168.0.100 to 150 or something then make your static on the pfsense for something outside that range say 192.168.0.99 or less or .151 or more. That would not conflict with any other devices on the 0 network.

And this should remove any issues with dhcp taking a bit to come back, etc.

When you have the issue - what does pfsense show for its wan IP? Can you ping the isp routers IP? You can do that from the diag tab or from the shell of the pfsense router.

Why double NAT?

In short, security is the key factor; not only from web based attacks but also from unknown network users in my shared property, not necessarily from attack by them personally but there is no guarantee that their own workstation security hasn't been compromised somehow and I'm not prepared to take the risk that their machines may be used as a potential launchpad for an attack on my server or personal workstations, for all I know their machines may potentially be riddled with any manner of nasty malware picked up from less than reputable software sources or dodgy websites.

Also the steep learning curve has been a particularly encouraging factor, can't learn if I don't try...

@ BudMan

DHCP lease time on the ISP router is 1 hour, last time it was restarted it was 3 hours before I returned home to discover a lack of internet. WAN IP remained the same after, presumably due to the fact that the WAN interface most likely remained up during this time instead of coming down and then back up.

I have assigned a static IP now to WAN, hopefully next time ISP router requires reboot I shan't run into the same issue.

Thanks again BudMan, you've been a wonderful help through all of this, for now it seems that my network is running rather smoothly and has a setup that more that satisfies my needs and desires, for now all is good, can't thank you enough. Perhaps though you will be seeing further posts from me in the future seeking aid with further networking issues, after all, I do like to tinker and am keen to learn... :D

Glad to hear - I would prob remove the double nat as well if possible. Then isolate them from your network via pfsense and another lan segment.. This would ease the access you wanted to do earlier via just a firewall rule vs nat in the way as well. Since everyone would be using pfsense it would ease name resolution for hosts on your lan.

Its another option - and gives you more control ;) You would then either need another wireless AP or push your wireless to a 3 segment and isolate it as well and then give it access into either of your 2 lan segments. You would have your own segment, there would be another hostile segment where other wired house guests are connected and then a 3rd wireless segment.

Been here quite some time, don't plan on going anywhere - so feel free to ask away any questions you might run into.

To be fair I am actually the only wired user in the whole building, I have an ethernet cable running out of my window and into the room where the ISP router resides, which is connected to pfSense at the other end. I only know 2 out of the other 7 people in my building and these are the guys I have connected to my segment and using my SMB share, it would be somewhat problematic trying to get everyone else to connect to a separate segment within my network as it would either require going and speaking to all of these people and either running a cable from their rooms to mine or convincing them to wirelessly connect to another AP and to be quite honest I really don't have the enthusiasm to do this.

As far as I'm concerned I'm happy for the 'unknowns' to continue using the ISP router directly and only allowing particular individuals access to my subnet, besides, I still look forward to the challenge of making FTP work through double NAT, it's been an interesting learning curve already and as such I have deepened my understanding of routing and NAT which essentially was part of the purpose of this experiment.

It's a nice idea nonetheless and I will at some point build another segment for my cisco lab to experiment with this sort of setup as again I would like to keep this separate from my .1 subnet due to the fact I will be experimenting with switching and routing on a more complex level. Does this seem like a reasonable idea to you?

Well if others are all wireless they are all competing for shared bandwidth - while you being wired more than likely get the lion share ;)

You can do whatever you want with your network behind pfsense, create as many segments as your box will allow interfaces or if vlan capable switches then you could just use vlan tagging to create your multiple segments all using 1 interface on pfsense, etc.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Playground Games confirms Forza Horizon 6 save wipe bug by Taras Buria Forza Horizon 6 was launched last month to critical acclaim (check out our review here), and it became a smash hit in an instant. Now, weeks into the launch, with die-hard fans clocking hundreds of hours, Forza Horizon 6 is facing a serious issue: save wipes. After multiple complaints on Reddit and social media, the studio issued a statement. The problem with missing saves came shortly after Playground Games promised the initial batch of gameplay tweaks and improvements. Unfortunately, there seems to be no temporary fixes for those affected by unexpected save wipes. However, the studio published a new support document with a few important steps users should try. First, affected gamers should open a support ticket immediately (go here to file one) so that the support team can try recovering the lost progress by reverting to an earlier save. Playground Games says this should be done the same day the issue occurs. Meanwhile, gamers are urged not to start new play sessions or create new saves. The studio also published a few things gamers should try to avoid to prevent potential progress loss: Ensure your Gaming Services app on PC or XBOX Series X|S console is fully up to date. On XBOX Series X|S consoles, disable Quick Resume for Forza Horizon 6: To disable Forza Horizon 6 from using Quick Resume, highlight the game box art anywhere in the console experience (Home, My Games & Apps, Pins, etc) and then press the Menu button, then go to Manage game and add-ons > Quick Resume settings > Disable Quick Resume. Ensure you are online when ‘quitting’ the game. Give your saved time to sync to the cloud before powering off or switching devices. Do not force quit the game during save screens. Do not power off the device during gameplay. Always "Quit" (console) or "Exit to desktop" (PC) once you've finished your play session, ensuring the save icon is not visible when you’re closing the game. Before turning off your console, shutting down your PC, or force-closing the Steam app, give your devices or clients at least a few minutes to ensure your latest progress has been synchronized with the cloud. This will reduce the risk of progress reversions as you switch between different platforms. XBOX Series X|S consoles, Steam, and the XBOX app on PC all include game save indicators that confirm your progress has been synced. You can read more about the bug in the official support document here. Forza Horizon 6 is currently available on PC (Steam and the Microsoft Store), Xbox Series X|S, and Game Pass. The game is also coming to PlayStation 5 later this year.
    • If only Windows would have a toggle switch labeled "Get the latest updates as soon as possible" inside Windows Update settings... But nah, let's hide the new stuff inside a controlled feature rollout, even if the user is explicitly asking for the new stuff as soon as possible. Awesome idea!
    • After watching the Apple event earlier this week it is quite the contrast. Apple is going back and tweaking the code to make things more efficient in many areas of MacOS. Windows is boosting your electric build to hide their issues.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      slackerzz earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      FBSPL earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      502
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      199
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      157
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      74
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!