Interface groups with NAT
In some scenarios it would be helpful to use interface groups with NAT (rdr and outbound).
#1 Updated by Erik Fonnesbeck about 9 years ago
This probably shouldn't be too hard to implement. With port forwards it will probably need code for separating the group into the member interfaces. Outbound NAT might need that, too. I'm not quite sure whether using interface groups is useful with outbound NAT, but if it is implemented, it may need a separate line in rules.debug for each interface in the group.
#2 Updated by Max Mustermann almost 9 years ago
- File Peplink_Balance_Web_Administration_Interface.png Peplink_Balance_Web_Administration_Interface.png added
For users previously using Peplink Balance routers, all WAN can be selected in the screen where rules are edited. Instead of creating a rule for each WAN link, the Peplink way is to create a rule and select one, more or all WAN interfaces with checkboxes. See attached screenshot.
#4 Updated by Max Mustermann almost 9 years ago
Current 20100731-1322 implementation is incorrect:
- having 'WAN1', 'WAN2' and 'WAN' as grouping of WAN1+WAN2
- <firewall_nat.php> can create a rule for WAN1
- creating an associated filter rule, creates one for WAN1 (= correct)
- now the associated filter rule can be edited, where interface WAN1 is changed to group WAN <firewall_rules_edit.php?id=1>
- after saving this, <firewall_nat.php> now displays 'WAN' && <firewall_nat_edit.php?id=0> displays 'WAN1' as interface (!= correct); html source of <firewall_nat_edit.php?id=0> shows: <option selected="" value="wan">WAN1</option>
#6 Updated by Jason Tackaberry about 1 year ago
I was evaluating pfsense to replace my homebrew Linux router/firewall. I have 3 internet facing interfaces and a large enough number of port forwards that apply to all of them. Interface groups are a great concept indeed but unfortunately they're neutered due the lack of support in NAT rules. With the current solution it appears I would need to maintain each port forward rule in triplicate. Suddenly my iptables bash script doesn't seem so bad. :)
So I'll stick with my Linux router for now, but wanted to chime in on this 8-year-old feature request to say that at least one random guy on the Internet is still interested in it. :)