I currently have :

  • 1 pfSense 2.0.2 router (on a Firebox X-Peak X5000)
  • 2 WAN
  • 1 LAN
  • 3 Servers

My interfaces

  • WAN1 68.XX.XXX.98 to 69.XX.XXX.102
  • WAN2 65.XXX.XXX.58 to 66.XXX.XXX.62
  • LAN 192.168.1.XXX
  • DMZ

My router is configured like this :

  • Load balancing with a Gateway group based on this documentation.
  • NAT
  • Rules to LAN servers
  • Bridge between WAN2 and DMZ (with external IPs on one DMZ server) - but can't communicate between this server and other servers on LAN passing by external IP address. With a custom route configuration I've been able to handle requests from LAN to server on DMZ, but I don't like doing it like this.

My servers are using local IP addresses 192.168.1.XXX, so the same for my computers.


I would like to do two things :

1 Bridge the two WANs with a DMZ and LAN behind NAT

I want the possibility to attribute external IP addresses to servers, and possibility to mix IPs to same server from both WANs. I would also like to be able to communicate with servers from the LAN example : <--> http://68.XX.XXX.99

Also being able to communicate from server to another server example:

65.XXX.XXX.59 <--> http://68.XX.XXX.99
  • Will I need to dedicate one external IP address for computers on LAN behind NAT?
  • Will I be able to keep the load-balacing working for the NAT?

Note : I would like to avoid one-to-one NAT, having local IP addresses on server complicate virtual hosting configuration so I prefer having external addresses.

2 Router hardware redondancy (CARP)

I have one more Firebox X-Peak X5000 identical, and would like to put it as a backup, if the first one fail, the second could take over without (or almost) loosing network (i.e., requests from outside to server must work, also from LAN and servers to Internet).

I've read this documentation, but I have no idea if it could work with my configuration (Bridge + NAT + Load balancing)

2 Answers 2


This could be cleared up quite nicely by using a one-to-one (or static) NAT. Your interfaces would be set up the same as they currently are, only difference is you wouldn't bridge the WAN/DMZ interfaces.

The only thing this will not accomplish is allowing you to speak from the LAN address space to your external address space. I assume the issue there is perhaps a DNS request is returning the external address? If that's the case then you could change your BIND config to include two different views - an internal and external - to provide different returns based on the source of the DNS request.

I believe the only other solution - to get everything that you're asking for here - is to have both ISPs assign you another block of addresses that you'd use on your DMZ interface.

As for the hardware failure bit, this should work fine as long as your interfaces are connected in the same L2 area as the fist firewall. It sounds like it's active/passive so this should be fine.

  • For the one-to-one method, I would like to avoid it (should include it in my question), I also doubt that I can have 2 IP blocks per ISP. One thing I think I could do is to create 4 WANS, 2 on each ISP one on each ISP for DMZ and one for NAT, sounds good? Jun 7, 2013 at 19:14

For the multi-wan bridge + NAT + load balancing, it can be setup as follow :

1 Create a DMZ interface

  • IPv4 Configuration Type : None

2 Create a bridge

  • Interfaces
  • Assign
  • Bridges
  • Add
  • Select WAN1, WAN2 and DMZ

3 Firewall rules

Unblock necessary ports and allow them in the appropriate WAN :

  • Source : *
  • Port : *
  • Destination : External IP address

With that configuration, servers on the DMZ can now work with public IP addresses. The only drawback so far is that I can't access hosts on DMZ from LAN.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.