Hi Folks,
my first post here on the forum.
In my past, I have installed already several OpnSense, often as something completely for a new environment.
This time it's more complex and somehow I have a interesting problem with routing.
The old setup:
Now I try to replace "firewall" with an OPNsense in the first step.
Afterwards there will be some additional improvents (VLAN / true segmentation etc.)
Currently I am just focusing replaceing the old stuff with a current HW/SW.
And here some intresting routing problem begins for me.
Server1:
IP 192.168.10.33/24
GW: 192.168.10.1
Server2:
IP: 172.32.16.20/24
GW: 172.32.16.1
Example packet flow: 192.168.10.33 -> 172.32.16.20
192.168.10.33 -> 192.168.10.1 -> 192.168.10.254 -> 172.32.16.1 -> 172.32.16.20
Both IPs (192.168.10.254,172.32.16.1) are Interfaces on the OPNsense.
This works like a charm. The Server 1 can access everything needed on 172.32.16.20 (Server 2).
The other way around is currently making me some headache.
172.32.16.20 -> 172.32.16.20 -> 192.168.10.254 -> 192.168.10.33
I am stepping here in some sort of asymetric routing, since the OPNSense Interface is on the same Network as the Server 1 it try's to send the traffic directly back to Server 1 instead over the Layer3SW. This somehow let the statetable not match the traffic and the packages are silently dropped.
In the Livelog GUI i just see the "pass" packets and nothing else, even after enabled logging of "everything". NAT, auto generated rules, default block, etc.
Do you guys have any clue how I can solve that?
With the old OpenBSD this is running since years.
Greetings,
Matthias
my first post here on the forum.
In my past, I have installed already several OpnSense, often as something completely for a new environment.
This time it's more complex and somehow I have a interesting problem with routing.
The old setup:
Code Select
# +----------+
# | router | ISP Router (Fiber)
# +----+-----+
# |
# |
# +----+-----+
# | |
# | |
# +-----------------+ Hub +------------------+
# |WANIP +----+-----+ | WANIP VPN
# +-+----------+ | +-------+------+
# | fortinet | |bge1 | OpenBSD/IKED|
# +-+----------+ |WAN IP +-------+------+
# | +-----+------+ | 10.2.1.254
# +-----------------| firewall +-----------------+
# em0/192.168.200.1 | | bge3/10.2.1.1
# | |
# | |
# DMZ -------------+ +---------------------------+10.4.1.254 - WLAN
# em1/172.32.16.1 | | bge2/10.4.1.1
# | |
# DMZ2 -------------+ |
# em2/10.3.1.1 | |
# | |
# +-----+------+
# |bge0
# |192.168.10.254
# |
# |
# |
# |
# | 192.168.10.1
# | 192.168.100.1
# | 192.168.140.1
# +-----+----+
# | Layer3SW +---------------192.168.10.0/24
# +-----+----+
# |
# / \
# 192.168.140.0/24-------- -------------- 192.168.100.0/24
The firewall in this case is an OpenBSD with pfNow I try to replace "firewall" with an OPNsense in the first step.
Afterwards there will be some additional improvents (VLAN / true segmentation etc.)
Currently I am just focusing replaceing the old stuff with a current HW/SW.
And here some intresting routing problem begins for me.
Server1:
IP 192.168.10.33/24
GW: 192.168.10.1
Server2:
IP: 172.32.16.20/24
GW: 172.32.16.1
Example packet flow: 192.168.10.33 -> 172.32.16.20
192.168.10.33 -> 192.168.10.1 -> 192.168.10.254 -> 172.32.16.1 -> 172.32.16.20
Both IPs (192.168.10.254,172.32.16.1) are Interfaces on the OPNsense.
This works like a charm. The Server 1 can access everything needed on 172.32.16.20 (Server 2).
The other way around is currently making me some headache.
172.32.16.20 -> 172.32.16.20 -> 192.168.10.254 -> 192.168.10.33
I am stepping here in some sort of asymetric routing, since the OPNSense Interface is on the same Network as the Server 1 it try's to send the traffic directly back to Server 1 instead over the Layer3SW. This somehow let the statetable not match the traffic and the packages are silently dropped.
In the Livelog GUI i just see the "pass" packets and nothing else, even after enabled logging of "everything". NAT, auto generated rules, default block, etc.
Do you guys have any clue how I can solve that?
With the old OpenBSD this is running since years.
Greetings,
Matthias
"