I'm not even sure what those other states are that you mentioned, so
I'm fairly sure I'm not using them.  This is a fairly simple/plain
install in a small office of 10 users.  When the problems occured,
there wasn't even anyone in the office.

Traffic passes fine from the inside out, its just from the outside in
for https management is where I ran into the problem.  What I'm afraid
of is that smtp inbound will also get the same treatment, which will
not be good when they get their email server.

With my limited knowledge, I would have to conclude that pfSense and
Alix are not as compatible as some other options, such as a PC and
pfSense.  I hope either a pfSense update in the future, or a ALIX bios
update will help correct these issues.  Until then, I will only deploy
pfSense on PC's from now on.

Thanks for your suggestions.

-- 
Joe LaGreca
Founder & Owner, BIG Net Online
619-393-1733 x200 Office
619-318-3246 Cell
www.BIGnetOnline.com



On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Paul Wollner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have seen problems when using modulate state and synproxy state. Using the 
> default keep state on the rules got rid of the issues.
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Chris Buechler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  Sent: 11 April 2008 09:20 AM
>  To: [email protected]
>  Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] pfsense on alix, slow to access via WAN
>
>  Joe Lagreca wrote:
>  > I am running pfSense on an Alix system 2c3.  When accessing via the
>  > LAN everything works great.  However when I try to access it via the
>  > WAN, its very slow, and will time out.  This is NOT a bandwidth issue.
>  >
>  > Sometimes the pages will load, but look as if the css file didn't load.
>  >
>  > Has anyone run into this problem before?
>  >
>
>  Only on a box where the state table was exhausted, doesn't sound like
>  that's likely to be the case in your circumstance.
>
>
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>  Checked by AVG.
>  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12/1372 - Release Date: 2008/04/10 
> 05:36 PM
>
>

Reply via email to