Re: [Xen-users] pfSense HVM

[Nicolas Vilz 'niv' <niv@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/29/10 01:46, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
> > actually, i use pfSense in hvm quite a while... it works. recently i
> > tried to get pfSense in pv, but that needs to be polished some time
> > before it is ready to use. (it works, but it is half broken that way
> > and i spent the whole day yesterday to get a clear view on that problem).
> That's good that it works well in HVM. What kind of throughput can you
> get? My co-lo is giving me a 100Mbit connection, thing Xen can handle that?
I think it is worth a try. problem is, you get 8139cp emulated chipset 
with hvm (without pci passthrough) and I don't really know, if that can 
handle 100mbit.
I had several event setups with pfSense as Uplink gateway one physical 
on a dl380 and one as HVM. On the WAN side there where 3 16MBit uplinks, 
on the LAN side there where up to 400 people accessing the WAN side.
Once the physical pfsense crashed because of RAM failure. Nobody 
noticed. Not even I noticed. So I can say, for 3x 16MBit you don't 
really notice a difference between physical pfsense and HVM virtualised one.
> > make sure, you can access that dom0 in event of emergency. If anything
> > happens to your pfsense, which is possible, you probably can't access
> > your dom0 anymore and are stuck and thats probably not what you want.
> This is a really good point, and I'm not sure what to do in this case.
> The only thing I can think of, is to give the 2nd physical NIC on the
> server access to the Dom0 directly (bypassing the pfSense firewall
> DomU), however I'm not sure if my co-lo can provision this without extra
> costs...
and then your dom0 will be accessible. that is what you wanted to 
prevent for extra security.
one advantage an extra NIC gives you in this situation, is: you can get 
hardwired access to a different network, which has nothing to do 
phyically with your main network and your pfsense in front. i don't know 
if your co-lo can make this happen, but it would be a possibility. an 
extra port for a NIC will normaly cost you something extra.
> > btw, you don't need to passthrough your nic for that behavior. In a
> > bridged setup you just have to leave your bridge interface to the
> > outside without an ip address.
> Since the NIC will be the physical interface for the WAN, I thought I
> would use PCI Passthrough for extra security? So that the Dom0 has *no
> access* to the physical NIC? Or am I incorrect?
if you passthrough your NIC, then you are right. no access from dom0 to 
physical NIC.
if you just setup a bridge on the WAN NIC and put the pfsense domU with 
one foot on that NIC, you have the possibility to setup another domU to 
be accessible outside, and you can setup emergency access to dom0 on 
that bridge, too. if you don't need dom0 for an external access, you can 
leave the bridge interface without an ip address, like i wrote above. I 
don't know, if someone can gain access to your dom0, when this dom0 has 
an unconfigured bridge listening on your WAN port.
you have to decide, how secure your setup shall be and what will you 
have to do, if your pfsense crashes.
if your co-lo doesn't allow you to have several MAC addresses on that 
port, you won't be able to use that kind of setup either.
in that case the only possible solution for you will be passthrough one 
of your two NICs to pfsense and hardwire the other one to your dom0 for 
emergency access.
PCI Passthrough is possible for your hardware, right? If not, you are 
still able to use the bridged setup as long as just one MAC shows up on 
that port.
Sincerly
Nicolas

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users