Then I thought the NAT configuration might need to be tweaked, but in that case I'm not sure what.
I understand pfSense cannot route to the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet, but why is this seen as the source, instead of the IP address pfSense has assigned to his router's WAN interface? Is this UPnP not tagging the SSDP packets properly?Īs far as I can think, I shouldn't need to (or want to) enable RIP - if I were to solve this by allowing routing, we need to manage what subnet each tenant uses for LAN. Since UPnP should listen on the interface, not the actual interface IP, why isn't a package originating from the LAN seens coming from a LAN? The bleeding obvious: Can the miniupnpd config easily be tweaked to consider the packages as coming from a LAN? Does UPnP ever work through nested routers?įollow-up questions, if the above is not possible: Have tried adding miniunpnd allow rule, but it doesn't make a difference Listen on interface instead of interface IP enabled (have also tried disabled) We don't use 192.168.1.0/24 in our part of the network, so it's probably safe to say this is the tenant's internal LAN.Īlso, UPnP status show no connected sessions. I do see SSDP packets being logged by miniupnpd, which indicated to me the tenant's router is in fact using UPnP, but I see these messages like this in the logs a handful of times every 30 seconds: miniupnpd: SSDP packet sender 192.168.1.1:38665 not from a LAN, ignoring I don't have an Xbox myself, so I don't know how much can actually be confiured on the console. I have enabled UPnP in pfSense and instructed tenant to do the same in his consumer router. LAN's uses VLAN tagging, a single physical interface and a single vNIC on the pfSense virtual machineįor more details, see the "Edit: What We Ended Up With" paragraph in my previous question at .Ī tenant complains that his XBox report "Strict NAT".
SSDP PACKET SENDER 173.32.43.8 MAC
We advise tenants to buy and connect their own router, as we limit the MAC addresses per tenant switch portġ WAN, 3 tenant LAN's, 1 admin LAN, 1 DMZĮach LAN has a /24 subnet within 172.16.0.0/16 Hope I have posted this in an appropriate place, that have provided enough info and shown that I've put thoughts and effort into attempting to solve this on my own :).ĥ4 apartments connected to shared fibre internet connection Other threads concerns older versions of pfSense, different symptoms or does not seem to include sufficient information for me to determine if it in fact even concerns the same issue.
is not an option, which rules out most of the suggestions. However, there could be multiple consoles on our LAN behind a consumer router, so static IPs, ports etc. I have read the stickies and other threads regarding the dreaded "strict NAT" problem. I'm managing a pfSense instance, which shares an internet connection in an apartment complex. Having been a sys admin for more than a decade, I'm no stranger to networking, though far from a wiz either.
0 kommentar(er)
