I'd say thanks for the help, as I have found the issue, but you lost some credit when you switched to telling me to not use OPNsense because I was having an odd issue, which is disappointing. Perhaps you were just being cheeky, but everyone has to start somewhere when learning and forums are a means to learn - if I had all of the answers like you then I wouldn't need to be here. I'll now pass on what I learned to others.
I have solved the issues I was having and will write about it here, in case anyone else shows up with similar problems. It turns out there were two issues with the setup, coming from pfSense:
With that solved, I now can enjoy not being tied to Netgate and their now closed-source pfSense and using the better Wireguard implementation for linking sites. I updated to the latest 26.1.3, which I can see that there's work being done to improve the UI for firewall rules, which I am looking forward to. Everything else is great, but I do miss the ability to apply colored separators with friendly names (e.g. a green bar with "Allow: DHCP and DNS" before those rules), like I had in pfSense, for organization. I am using the categories + tree view, which is workable, but is not as nice when comparing similar rules across different interfaces. It also seems like sorting when in tree view when looking at all rules can cause issues if you try to sort things, versus the old interface style of having separate tables for each interface.
Anyways, all good now - thanks for the assistance. Cheers.
I have solved the issues I was having and will write about it here, in case anyone else shows up with similar problems. It turns out there were two issues with the setup, coming from pfSense:
- The main issue was a simple checkbox. In the DHCP server setup, I had set static ARP entries for all of the networking devices (to prevent ARP spoofing) and so that I can use WOL for some of my systems. I had set one for my main desktop PC, which is what I was using for setup. I then checked the innocuous looking box in the DHCP server settings to "Enable Static ARP entries" thinking, sure, that will then enable the ones I defined in the static mappings table. Apparently that checkbox makes it so that only those defined devices can communicate, blocking all others, which is counter-intuitive - but I can replicate my issues by simply toggling that checkbox and the whole network goes down. When it was checked, it's why I was banging my head because my desktop PC had internet access, but no WiFi client did - the WiFi clients weren't in the static ARP entries list. Once I unchecked it, all of the WiFi and VLANs worked as normal and the network came alive and it's been working fine now.
- The best practice I was going for, by moving my private LAN to VLAN 10 is cumbersome with Unifi hardware. While you can change the APs to use a different management network, the switches do not seem to work on anything other than VLAN 1 (hardcoded). Since I had to use VLAN 1 for management to maintain control of my Unifi hardware, I was then working to move my trusted LAN to use VLAN 10, since you're not supposed to have an untagged port which matches one of the broadcast WiFi network VLANs (so I wasn't supposed to have a WiFi network for VLAN 1 and then had the port for the AP be untagged for VLAN 1 for management). That became hectic because I then had parallel paths into OPNsense because I wanted to maintain 192.168.1.1/24 (muscle memory) for my trusted LAN (now VLAN 10), yet provide a path for the management traffic (VLAN 1), keeping the UDM Pro (the network controller) in that same range for continuity (e.g. 192.168.1.2). It turns out that the Unifi hardware carves out a special case for VLAN 1 whereas there's a single note on their VLAN setup along that lines that simply "VLAN 1 is different and doesn't apply here". In short, you absolutely can use VLAN 1 for the native/untagged port of APs that broadcast a VLAN 1 SSID. My guess is that they specifically don't tag VLAN 1 traffic if the SSID uses VLAN 1 so that it gets its tag when it hits the untagged port - then it routes like normal. I removed all of the VLAN 10 assignments, went back to the way I had it with pfSense, and it's all been running fine - with all hardware reachable in the network controller and WiFi clients getting the appropriate IPs.(
With that solved, I now can enjoy not being tied to Netgate and their now closed-source pfSense and using the better Wireguard implementation for linking sites. I updated to the latest 26.1.3, which I can see that there's work being done to improve the UI for firewall rules, which I am looking forward to. Everything else is great, but I do miss the ability to apply colored separators with friendly names (e.g. a green bar with "Allow: DHCP and DNS" before those rules), like I had in pfSense, for organization. I am using the categories + tree view, which is workable, but is not as nice when comparing similar rules across different interfaces. It also seems like sorting when in tree view when looking at all rules can cause issues if you try to sort things, versus the old interface style of having separate tables for each interface.
Anyways, all good now - thanks for the assistance. Cheers.
"