VLAN configuration on a "smart" switch for a guest WiFi network


Recommended Posts

So I finally got round to buying a proper access point (Unifi nanoHD), which is capable of having multiple SSIDs, mapped to VLANs.  I have a "smart" switch (TP-Link TL-SG2008), and a PFSense based firewall (SG2220).

 

Assuming that:

1) The AP is connected to the switch on port 1

2) The firewall is connected to port 8

3) There a bunch of other "trusted" devices on the other 6 ports.

4) I want my "trusted" network to run on VLAN 11.

5) I want my "untrusted" network to run on VLAN 99.

 

Is it right that I?

Set up a "trusted" SSID on the AP, which is on VLAN 11.

Set up an "untrusted" SSID on the AP, which is on VLAN 99.

Set up port 1 on my switch to preserve VLANs

Set up port 8 on my switch to preserve VLANs

Set up ports 2 through 6 to tag packets on entry with VLAN 11 and strip VLANs on the way out

 

Does anyone know how to achieve the configuration on my particular switch?

Also what changes do I need to make to pfSense to treat the VLANs as logical interfaces, each with their own subnet, DHCP ranges, internet access and prevent any routing between them?

 

Is there a specific sequence I need to do this all in so I don't lose connectivity to the various components whilst I make the changes?

In your pfsense config, you will want to create your vlans.  What you will do is create a rule to block traffic coming from your guest vlan to your private vlan, it will be able to communicate with all other networks.  

 

You will trunk your vlans on a port (usually you just have to enable trunking, but you can tell it to include those vlans on that trunk port) to the switch.  You will probably have to configure the switch port that is coming from pfsense to trunk.  You will have to configure the switch with the vlan id's that are coming from the pfsense router.  Then you can assign those vlans to ports.  

 

If you have a AP that is vlan capable (**cough** ubiquiti **cough**), you would trunk all of the vlans to that and make your AP default to the private vlan or a management vlan of some sort (so add another vlan for management of devices that can only have source traffic come from your private vlan, another pfsense access control list) to manage networking devices.  Then you can have your AP host both the Guest VLan via a Guest SSID and your Private vlan via Private SSID.

 

 

Draw it out on paper first on how you want things to work.  It will then become clear to you what you have to do and if you will or will not experience an outage.  Understand that you will probably have 1 lan  for internet traffic to go across, 1 lan for house, 1 lan for guest, if any guest or house will need to share devices like printers, another for printers/shared devices, and maybe for the hell of it one for IoT devices.  (fyi, I don't see a way to not have an outage of some sort...you can create the networks and test, but when you move devices over to the new LANs they may have to reboot).

 

  On 24/05/2019 at 19:33, sc302 said:

Draw it out on paper first on how you want things to work.

Expand  

This is very good advice... This will allow you to understand exactly what has to be done, and where.

  On 28/05/2019 at 11:57, sc302 said:

And vlan 2 (or whatever vlan....could be vlan1 but that is just lazy) going between modem and router. Internet traffic isolated on its own vlan to not mix secured from unsecured devices

Expand  

Can you explain that?  Given that the modem is ISP provided, with no control whatsoever in terms of VLANs, how would I achieve this?

The isp goes into the router. Whatever that is it is a Vlan or untrusted network.  This would be an untagged port. If we are treating this as an outside/untrusted network on a firewall/router nothing else is needed to be done.  

  On 28/05/2019 at 15:14, BudMan said:

So both of those vlans are tagged or is one native (untagged) and the other tagged? 

Expand  

Is one of these choices better than the other? If I choose to leave one untagged, would it be the trusted or guest one?

 

  On 28/05/2019 at 15:14, BudMan said:

At the switch and router? 

Expand  

Don't understand this question.

 

The picture is meant to be of what I want to end up with, not what I have right now (single SSID, no tagging at all anywhere)

  On 28/05/2019 at 15:48, Fahim S. said:

The picture is meant to be of what I want to end up with, not what I have right now (single SSID, no tagging at all anywhere)

Expand  

tagging/untagging is how switches work.  an untagged port is an access port.  An access port is an endpoint port where a device on the other end is essentially dumb and doesn't know the difference between tagged and untagged traffic.

 

Tagged is how a trunk works, this allows the port to encapsulate all of the vlans you choose on a single port.  You can have a native vlan (untagged) and several encapsulated vlans (tagged) on a single port that connects to a switch that can decipher this type of traffic (known also as 802.1Q).  

 

For your ap to work, it will have one port.  That one port can support all of the vlans you want to send over to the AP.  You can have the AP on both a tagged and untagged port...the tagged vlan will be the guest vlan and the tagged/untagged vlan will be your secured vlan.  just like in your picture.  

 

You need to understand the terminology, that is all.  If you don't know ask, don't assume that you aren't tagging anywhere, you have to tag for vlans to function across a single port.

 

edit: so you don't get confused, and being that budman has more time with helping, I will let him work with you.  If you get stuck or need simpler explanation please ask.

As to tagged or untagged doesn't matter which... Its just how you set it up.. Its normally more intuitive on say your router where the actual physical interface network is left untagged.  Vs not putting any network on the physical interface, and only enabling vlans that run on that phy interface.

 

As to switch and router, this is where native or untagged vlan will come in to play. For example out of the box on a switch the vlan 1 is untagged. 

 

On your AP if you do not set a vlan for an SSID, then it would be native untagged... And that would be need to be set on the switch port the AP is connected too.  If you tag both SSIDs on AP with vlan IDs then you would have to set them as tagged on the switch port the AP is connected too.

 

On the interface to the router same thing - if you set both as tagged vlans on your router, then they would both have to be tagged on the switch port that connected to your router.

 

On a port that carries more than 1 vlan, only 1 could be untagged (native) all other vlans would have to be TAGGED... Or all of them could be TAGGED... All depends on the device your connecting to that switch port and how its configured for native or all tagged, etc.

 

To be honest I think tag and untagged is what confuses the most new users to vlans.

  On 28/05/2019 at 16:03, sc302 said:

edit: so you don't get confused, and being that budman has more time with helping, I will let him work with you.  If you get stuck or need simpler explanation please ask.

Expand  

Thanks for the offer (I genuinely am grateful), but with the very greatest respect I never find your explanations very "simple".

 

  On 28/05/2019 at 16:21, Fahim S. said:

Thanks for the offer (I genuinely am grateful), but with the very greatest respect I never find your explanations very "simple".

 

Expand  

Interesting, but ok.  I do take great pride to simplify things, but completely understandable.  Everyone has different understanding levels, some people require many different approaches until they finally understand (or think they do). 

  On 28/05/2019 at 16:04, BudMan said:

As to tagged or untagged doesn't matter which... Its just how you set it up.. Its normally more intuitive on say your router where the actual physical interface network is left untagged.  Vs not putting any network on the physical interface, and only enabling vlans that run on that phy interface.

 

As to switch and router, this is where native or untagged vlan will come in to play. For example out of the box on a switch the vlan 1 is untagged. 

 

On your AP if you do not set a vlan for an SSID, then it would be native untagged... And that would be need to be set on the switch port the AP is connected too.  If you tag both SSIDs on AP with vlan IDs then you would have to set them as tagged on the switch port the AP is connected too.

 

On the interface to the router same thing - if you set both as tagged vlans on your router, then they would both have to be tagged on the switch port that connected to your router.

 

On a port that carries more than 1 vlan, only 1 could be untagged (native) all other vlans would have to be TAGGED... Or all of them could be TAGGED... All depends on the device your connecting to that switch port and how its configured for native or all tagged, etc.

 

To be honest I think tag and untagged is what confuses the most new users to vlans.

Expand  

OK... but in my switch I can set a port (on a per VLAN basis) as Untagged, Tagged, or Not Member. I can also give a port a PVID.  The switch doesn't have an option to set a port as an access port or trunk as such. 

 

I am pretty sure that for VLAN 99 I want to set port 1 and 8 as tagged and the others as Not Member. 

 

But what do I do for VLAN 11? Set them all to Tagged? What PVID should they have?

 

 

So if you put a port in vlan 11, and your going to connect a computer to it then that would be untagged 11 with pvid set to 11... This tells the switch when it sees untagged traffic coming into that port that its vlan 11.

 

When you connect say your router that is using untagged (native interface on the router) and you want that as 11, then same thing untagged 11, pvid 11

 

For the vlan 99 which you run on top of that physical interface, on the switch port it would add tagged 99.

 

For your access point same sort of thing.. if you do not put a vlan ID on one of your SSID that would be the untagged and pvid setting, with the other vlan set to tagged.

 

Your running pfsense as your router?  I can show you some screenshots of what I mean by native and vlan on pfsense.

got it.. thank you!

I decided to keep my trusted network untagged and decided that VLAN 100 would be a better choice for guest.

 

OK.. now the pfSense set up...

I set up a VLAN for 100, and then a (sub)-interface for this VLAN

I then set the interface with a static IP (I used 192.168.100.1 /32).  Kept everything else as default.

When I go to add a DHCP server, I don't even see the tab for my Guest network. 

 

Have I done something wrong?

 

  On 28/05/2019 at 17:47, Fahim S. said:

/32).

Expand  

that is wrong!  You prob want /24 which would be 192.168.100.1-254 would be valid IPs on that network.

 

/32 is all 32 bits.. so 192.168.100.1 is the ONLY address.  So can not run a dhcp server on that ;)

  On 28/05/2019 at 17:49, BudMan said:

that is wrong!  You prob want /24 which would be 192.168.100.1-254 would be valid IPs on that network.

Expand  

this is because /32 is a single IP Address and /24 would be a block of IP addresses? I don't understand how that works..

 

OK.. so now I have a DHCP server, giving out addresses 192.168.100.10 through 192.168.100.100.

Now no matter which WiFi network I get on, I can get out to the internet, which is good, but both networks can see devices in the trusted network.

 

How do I stop this?

Ooops...Completely forgot the firewall rules.

 

I added 2 rules.. an allow all, and a deny access to the trusted network, both to the Guest interface.

Do I need to add a similar deny rule to stop the trusted network being able to access the Guest network?

I can reach the pfSense administrative interface through both networks.  192.168.0.1 on the trusted network and 192.168.100.1 on the guest network.

Is there a way to stop access to this UI from the guest network?

Yeah put in a firewall rule to block it ;)

 

Normally on a guest network it would be pretty locked down..

 

Rules are evaluated top down, first rule to trigger wins, no other rules are evaluated... Post up our rules on our guest vlan interface and we can discuss

 

So what do you want to allow and what do you want to block?  If you just don't want clients to access gui.. Then put a rule above the any rule that says block dest lan address port XYZ, where xyz is the ports (or ports) via an alias that your gui is listening on.

 

example, if your gui just running on 80 (http)

example.thumb.png.7803110dc3e73282ac1f4b02f3583b23.png

 

Keep in mind that such rules would allow guest to actually hit your gui via your wan IP..

 

You could do something like this

otherblocks.thumb.png.51b83a10b4f6cb4e0fc82f1f32c02b86.png

 

So you allow guest to "ping" pfsense guest address. So client can validate they have connectivity to the gateway.

 

But then any other access to firewall is blocked - all IPs, lan, guest, optX, wan, etc.. "this firewall" is a drop down option for dest.

 

This would require clients to be using some outside dns - which is what you normally hand "guest" clients anyway - say 8.8.8.8 for example.

 

Or you could allow clients to use pfsense guest IP for dns and ping - but block all other access

icmpdnswlabels.thumb.png.1ae6bbf33a892c38c2084204340339a9.png

 

Given that when I show "test" on my screenshots you would use your "guest" ;)

 

Since this is local network and not public internet you might want to use "reject" vs just block.. This will tell the client F Off!! Vs letting the client keep trying with retrans, waiting and retrans again.. Client will get told instantly sorry blocked!

reject.thumb.png.37dfce04439b8e59d7d29d33953c019a.png

 

While reject is normally good for your local networks.. You would normally not want to reject any blocks you do from the internet.. Just block (drop) them.. Vs sending any sort of response.

 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Now, kids, Dan O'Dowd is what we call a professional hater.
    • Billionaire slams 'Tesla Cultists' for praising Robotaxi, says it's 5+ years behind Waymo by David Uzondu Image via Depositphotos.com The Tesla Robotaxi program has kicked off in Austin, Texas, and reactions are pouring in from all corners of the internet. A select group of investors and influencers have been invited to try the service, which operates within a limited area of South Austin for a price of $4.20. While the vehicles are operating without anyone in the driver's seat, the program has specific rules for this pilot phase, including a human "safety monitor" who rides along in the passenger seat just in case things go sideways. Of course, the launch did not go unnoticed by Tesla's most vocal and well-funded critic, Dan O'Dowd. O'Dowd is the billionaire founder of a group called The Dawn Project, which has dedicated itself to highlighting what it calls critical safety failures in Tesla's Full Self-Driving software. He refers to himself as an expert in creating "unhackable" software for military and aerospace clients, and ran for U.S. Senate back in 2022 on a single-issue platform: to "make computers safe for humanity" by banning Tesla's FSD. In 2023, He was banned from advertising on X after He made promoted posts that show Tesla FSD among other things, failing to stop at Stop signs. Last year, his group, The Dawn Project, paid for a Super Bowl ad, where a Tesla equipped with FSD did not act on a child-sized mannequin in the road. That commercial ends with a message, urging parents to "boycott Tesla to keep your kids safe." Today, O'Dowd took to X to slam the launch of the Robotaxi service, saying the "Tesla Cultists are celebrating victory" over a system he believes is years behind the competition (especially Waymo). He pointed out that with only fourteen cars operating for half the day, the system was already making significant errors, a rate he claims is consistent with community-tracked FSD data. The videos shared by the creators (Rob Maurer and Ed Niedermeyer), O'Dowd mentioned in his post, appear questionable, depending on your perspective. In Maurer's video, a trip that was otherwise smooth had a few unnerving seconds of the vehicle slightly swerving into the wrong lane, correcting itself, swerving again, correcting itself, and then finally settling. The other video from Ed Niedermeyer shows something entirely different. Niedermeyer captured a Tesla Robotaxi approaching an "extensive crime scene" with multiple police vehicles parked on the side of the road. On his personal Bluesky account (Ed stopped posting on X late last year, in protest of Musk), He claims the Tesla braked hard twice for no clear reason. In his commentary, Niedermeyer argued the car "shouldn't react to any of these police vehicles," and that it was concerning how it reacted to some but not others, before stopping in the "middle of the road instead of defaulting to a minimal risk condition."
    • Arch is now also using Wayland as the default session for Plasma 6.4, with X11 session becoming optional (so upgrading to Plasma 6.4 on X11 Arch might need manual intervention). It's been well over a decade in making, but I guess the time for Wayland to be the default is finally upon us.
    • I don't want Facebook on my computer or phone, why would I want it on my face, looking at everything I see?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      ravenmanNE earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Conversation Starter
      Brett76 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      Miguel Batista earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Dedicated
      moojay67 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      Jim Dugan earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      656
    2. 2
      Michael Scrip
      229
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      220
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      150
    5. 5
      Xenon
      142
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!