Set an indipendent second WAN interface

Just remove the „Gateway“ setting from this uplink. 

Hello PhilippRusch ,

thank you for your answer. What do you mean? Once I setup the WAN interface, I cannot remove the gateway.

Hello Leonardo,

as per your explanation I think you do not want a second "WAN" interface, because you said this is NOT used as an access to the internet.

I assume you assigned that interface to the "WAN" zone, which implies you have to assign a gateway and this interface will be added as a second uplink in "WAN-manager".

So just don't assign it to the "WAN" zone, if you do not intend to use it as a WAN-interface!

You could define a new zone, let's call it "MPLS" and this doesn't become part of the WAN-uplink manager group.

To reach other networks over this "MPLS"-interface you would need to define static routes, though.

Good morning PhilippRusch ,

thank you for your answer and sorry for my late reply.

Before opening this thread I already tried what you suggested but probably there is something I did not set correctly and it did not worked.

There is something I forgot to mention: our network devices are Ubiquiti and VLANs are managed through the Unifi Dream Machine Pro and "assigned" to the ports of the switches.

Yesterday I tried the following setup and it did not work the same:

VLAN 210 (Third-party Gateway), created on the UDMP's network side, tagged on ports 37 to 48 of the switch. The idea is to let the FW manage the VLAN with a DHCP server assigned to the VLAN interface.

WAN2 (MPLS with NO Internet access) > Port4 - I connected the MPLS router to this interface in the MPLS zone. IP of the interface: 10.10.200.2 (.1 is the router)

VLAN > Port6 - I connected the port 37 of the switch in the MPLS zone. IP of the interface: 10.10.210.1

The VLAN on Port6 is literally a VLAN interface that I assigned to the Port6 (Port6.210) with a DHCP server binded. Then, I simply created a firewalling rule that was redirecting the traffic from Port6 to Port4 and the other way around. In this way, I think that static routes are not necessary. 

Is there something I am missing or that I made wrong on this setup?

Thank you for your precious support and have a nice day!

Best regards,

Leonardo

Hello Leonardo,

did you define a gateway at WAN2?

Please post a screenshot of your edit window of that interface.

Hello PhilippRusch ,

I improperly called it WAN2 but, as you also suggested, I did not configured the port in the WAN zone. I created a LAN zone called MPLS and I assigned it to the Port4. Then, I created a LAN zone called VLAN and I assigned to the Port6. Then, I created a gateway binded to the Port4.

Port 4:

Gateway binded to the Port4:

Port 6 and Port6.210:

The VLAN ID 210 interface is needed to the UDMP in which I tagged the VLAN 210.

The firewalling rule simply goes from the VLAN to the MPLS. Source and Destination are Network groups and not ports. I can see that the traffic goes out from Port6 but does not reach in any way the Port4 and back.

Am I missing something?

Hello Leonardo,

can you show us the definition of "STATIC_Port4_GW" ?

Hello PhilippRusch ,

sure, here you are!

Thank you.

Hello PhilippRusch ,

sure, here you are!

Thank you.

Hello Leonardo,

that does not define a route through a gateway, as you might have thought. This is only a definition for a monitoring condition for uplinks.

What you want is a couple of static routes through that MPLS Gateway at 10.10.200.1 poiting to the other (remote) networks behind it.

You will need to specify the other networks in one route for each network.

Good morning PhilippRusch ,

yesterday I tried to create two unicast static routes:

From VLAN to MPLS:

and from MPLS to VLAN:

Anyway, routing is not working. Probably I am doing something wrong but I cannot find out what.

Thank you!

10.10.210.1/24 is a wrong network definition, have you tried it with networks like 10.10.210.0/24?

Hello Leonardo,

you need to define the network you want to route to, not the host.

Then you need to define the route to the 10.10.210.0 /24 network ON THE OTHER SIDE. The remote site has to knw how to reach the 210 net.

Good morning Kevin, Philipp,

thank you. After clicking on the "Save" button, the setting automatically translates the host IP in a Network IP. So, this is not the problem.

 PhilippRusch as from the screenshots I defined both of the routes. From VLAN to MPLS and from MPLS to VLAN.Is there something wrong about it?

The second screenshot is from the other firewall system at the remote site?

Hello PhilippRusch 

VLAN and MPLS are on the same site. Sorry for missing this information.

The MPLS router is connected to the Port4 and the switch in which the VLAN is tagged to the port 6. The VLAN is configured from port 37 to port 48 of the switch and it is defined in the Unifi Dream Machine Pro networks as a "third-party gateway" with VID 210. 

For this reason, I binded a VLAN interface to Port6 with VID 210. Is the setup clear now or you need further information?

Hi, reading back I don't quite get your setup. You have 2 ports (port 4 and port 6.210). You only have 1 MPLS router on port 4. Where is port 4 connected?
Is it connected directly to the MPLS router or is there a switch in between? If there is a switch in between and it's port is a tagged port, then you should also have a tagged (VLAN) port on the Sophos side.

Perhaps you could create a little drawing of your network topology because I don't quite see yet why you have two interfaces in the firewall that both have to do something for your MPLS network.

Hello apijnappels ,

thank you for your answer.

The MPLS router is directly connected to the Port4 of the firewall. There is no switch in the middle. To the Port6 of the firewall, there is a switch that has the VLAN 210 tagged from port 37 to port 48 of the switch. On these ports there are our ESXi host connected. What I want is to let some Virtual Machines reach the MPLS router. 

As a workaround, what I am currently doing is to keep the MPLS router directly connected to the switch bypassing the firewall. But this is not a good setup neither from a security point of view nor from a logging point of view.

If the setup is still not clear, I will prepare a short schema for you.

Thank you for your support!

Leonardo