Hi Peter, I'm sorry, but I for one have had quite enough emails from you by now. You have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand enough about firewalls, filtering, BSD etc. to use pfSense in it's current state. And I have more then enough emails to read without this mailing list getting filled up with unneeded info. It seems some devs has already tried to nicely inform you that you are somewhat on the wrong track here. Like comparing a i386 generic OS and HW, with a Cisco PIIX, I mean come on, what on earth are you thinking ? A OS created to do routing and packet filtering running with ASICs is not comparable to FreeBSD on I386 at all. I mean a Junpier M40 might have a PII 233Mhz processor and 256 MB RAM. It does 40 million pps +++. So then I guess FreeBSD running on a 500Mhz with 512MB ram should handle twice as much ?!? Junos is even derived from freebsd so it _MUST_ be somewhat the same :p
Seriously, you have clearly demonstrated that you do not have a clue about what your doing, even suggesting to put the same IP on two interfaces clearly shows me that you do not know the first thing about how things works. Even thinking about using pfsense in a datacenter to protect your boxes with your kind of knowledge is at best a BAD move. Now please sit down and read up on routing, TCP/IP and BSD in general. Then learn how the things work from sitting in your own LAB and test things (not with ab btw.). Then put what you have learned to good use (and NO, that does not mean writing another 60 emails to this list). That means test, and figure out the problem, and give us a fix/patch. Or at least a detailed description of the problem, and how to repeat it. We already know that there are many bugs in the system and that performance is not close to what it can be. But the goal for 1.0 is to have something that works and gives users a nice SOHO firewall solution. It's not to give you a system so that you can sell your [insert project] with a minimal cost. Also remember this, each email you send to this list steals x minutes of time from each developer. So your 60 plus emails has probably consumed at least 300 minutes times 10 from the developers of this project. That amounts to 3000 minutes, and each dev might have as much as 4-6 hours after a days work, that is spent on this project. Now find your calc and see how many days of development time you have "wasted". Now, feel free to contribute. And if you can't do it with code or usefull testing, do it with HW or documentation. -lsf -----Original Message----- From: Peter Zaitsev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31. oktober 2005 23:57 To: support@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Empty LAN IP is broken once again On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 17:51 -0500, Scott Ullrich wrote: > After all of the problems from the last couple days its obvious that > an IP address is required on the LAN interface so I have reinstalled > the code that prevents someone from not entering an IP address. The > shaper is another area that gets broken by this careless move on my > part. Heh. So we're back dead in a water. IP is required. The same IP as on WAN leads to trouble. Fake IP leads to less trouble but still some stuff does not work this way > > Scott > > On 10/31/05, Peter Zaitsev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It looks like there is some newly added bug in 0.90 with empty LAN > > address (WAN bridging) > > > > # FTP proxy > > rdr-anchor "pftpx/*" > > rdr on em1 proto tcp from any to any port 21 -> 127.0.0.1 port 8021 > > > > > > pass in on em1 proto tcp from /29 to any port 5900:5930 keep state tag > > qOthersDownH > > pass out on em0 proto tcp from any to any port 5900:5930 keep state > > tag qOthersUpH > > pass in on em0 proto tcp from any to /29 port 5900:5930 keep state tag > > qOthersUpH > > pass out on em1 proto tcp from any to /29 port 5900:5930 keep state > > tag qOthersDownH > > > > > > I guess this is part of traffic shaper. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
