David Meireles wrote:
noticed I couldn't use the same box for this, because there was only ONE
tun device, and it would be used for whatever service (the openvpn
you can have as many openvpn servers running as you like, just give each
one its own port. they can each have entirely different
Yes, but I want to use a pfsense box to act both as OpenVPN Server and
OpenVPN Client. For example, the box is now acting as a server,
althrough I have the client connection to site X configurated, but not
enabled... If I enable this connection, I immediately loose the Server,
because both are
Hi, David !
I have client and servermode working with pfsense on one system and it works
like a charm...
My server is running on UDP/1194 and the clients (2 of hem) are running on
UDP/dynamic port...
no problem with it at all...
Please recheck your config and make sure the OpenVPN services
You mean Dynamic sourceport option on the client configuration? That
option is not check, I can try that, but only latter, when all the road
warriors go home. But Martin, if you do an ifconfig, how many tun
interfaces do you have?
Fuchs, Martin escreveu:
Hi, David !
I have client and
David Meireles wrote:
Yes, but I want to use a pfsense box to act both as OpenVPN Server and
OpenVPN Client. For example, the box is now acting as a server,
althrough I have the client connection to site X configurated, but not
enabled... If I enable this connection, I immediately loose the
I'm using diferent ports. For the server is the default UDP port, as for
the client connection to site X, they have their server on 5 UDP
port, so it's not from that... And yes, I'm using the latest stable
version of pfSense.
I thought too that each deamon would create his own tun device,
David Meireles wrote:
I thought too that each deamon would create his own tun device, but that
our vpn box has a different server for each user, and there are many tun
devices. so I think you have something wrong. login to the box, do a ps
auxgw | grep openv and look in the dirs for the
Yepp... i mean the dynamic sourceport option...
try to check it to select a dynamic sourceport so the 1194 port should not be
in use then...
with ifconfig i have 3 tun interfaces for 3 openvpn instances...
Von: David Meireles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch,
This may have been beaten to death now but if UT is truely in a bridge mode,
you shouldn't need an IP address on it except for management. If that is
the case, I could change the IP of UT to something in the private range and
see if your issues clear up. What is your internet connection. I am
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Curtis LaMasters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This may have been beaten to death now but if UT is truely in a bridge
mode, you shouldn't need an IP address on it except for management. If that
is the case, I could change the IP of UT to something in the private
rant
You've also dodged several attempts at actually telling us what services are in
use on your Untangle box. Simply saying all of them are enabled doesn't tell
those of us who are not familiar with Untangle much about your setup. Your
subnet configuration would also be helpful instead of
Okay... if I understand correctly, now it seems you are able to see the
authentication screen. But once authenticated, you still don't get out.
Try turning off MAC checking in pfSense's captive portal setup.
- Jason
From: ram [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
I'm running 1.2-RELEASE and we recently upgraded from 10mbps DSL to a
metro fiber link and we were seeing a pretty significant performance hit
across the firewall, especially outbound. In troubleshooting this, my
provider has disabled all limiting on their end and the connection is
basically a
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Ted Crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running 1.2-RELEASE and we recently upgraded from 10mbps DSL to a
metro fiber link and we were seeing a pretty significant performance hit
across the firewall, especially outbound. In troubleshooting this, my
provider
Bill, Anyone,
Would it be possible to get notified when you all
feel this issue is
resolved and ready for -re-testing??
I'd welcome the opportunity to dive into 1.3 A2X,
but unfortunately
we are short on standalone server hardware ... so
VM is my only
option now.
--
David L. Strout
Engineering
I was just wondering if there was something
drastically broke in the
past latest release? Why the removal (just to
far out of date?)
I uninstalled on a test box and I can't even get
it back in its old
version/state ... is there a reason that the older
version wasn't left
available? Seem that
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:26 PM, DLStrout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill, Anyone,
Would it be possible to get notified when you all feel this issue is
resolved and ready for -re-testing??
I'd welcome the opportunity to dive into 1.3 A2X, but unfortunately we are
short on standalone server
As an additional note, I've already tried the following to no avail:
- tcp/udp tweaking (no change)
- duplex mismatch testing (no problems)
- disabling pf to see if it's an issue with my rules
(good idea Matthew, but no change)
Other items of note:
- FTP bandwidth from the shell on the
Thanks for the update will keep an eye out
for them.
--
David L. Strout
Engineering Systems Plus, LLC
- Original Message -
SUBJECT: Re: [pfSense Support] 1.3 alpha2X on
VMware server 1.0.5
FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
DATE: 07-30-2008 7:00 pm
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at
Ted,
I had a similar issue with 10Mb symmetric Cox fiber connection in Las
Vegas. For some reason, their equipment didn't like the BroadCom NIC in
the system I had. Fortunately, there was another NIC in the system
(Intel) that worked just fine. When I performed a bandwidth test using
the
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ted Crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an additional note, I've already tried the following to no avail:
- tcp/udp tweaking (no change)
Shouldn't be necessary anyway. Most of those settings are only
relevant when the firewall is the endpoint of the connection.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ted Crow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what I can see.
- the DMZ speed is 40-60Mbps to the Internet and 50-60Mbps to the LAN.
How are you testing? I've pushed more than that through a 500
Hi Chris
I have an experimental rack for a start-up idea on 100 mbps pipe and the
machines is an Dell 450 mhtz and added-in Intel 10/100 Server cards. Have
Red/Orange/Green with about 12 servers. The image is 1.2 release and I have
had no trouble cranking up to 78 mbps once ..
Another point
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Anil Garg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would love to try the new 1.2.1 but there are so many images
Which one should be tested as most stable.
They're built once a day. Most days RELENG_1_2 doesn't change, and any
changes that do occur are minor. Just pick
thanks.
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] pfSense 1.2-RELEASE: Performance Issue?
To: support@pfsense.com
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 10:03 PM
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Anil Garg [EMAIL
25 matches
Mail list logo
