On Monday, July 01, 2013 07:11:39 PM Chris Bagnall wrote: > We've several 2.1 deployments in the wild already and v6 > support seems to be stable.
We're running pfSense extensively to build and maintain our corporate WAN, so we'd only be comfortable to look at it once it's mainstream. > The only thing we've found to watch out for when choosing > hardware is that 2.1 is quite a bit more RAM hungry than > previous versions. I suspect that's probably down to > increases in the underlying FreeBSD footprint rather > than anything pfSense specific. We've thrown 16GB, 24GB or 48GB of RAM (depending on the box) at all our pfSense deployments. So we should be quite happy :-). But I realize many installations won't be this generous. > The 128MB RAM ALIX boards, for example, really don't cut > it any more. Yes, these will certainly be a PITA. > Our deployments have tended to use DHCPv6 rather than > SLAAC for client address assignment, more for ease of > administration (static DHCP leases) than for any > specific technical benefit. As you do :-). Stateful DHCPv6 is where we're leaning toward, depending on what clients support. Windows 7 and 8, as well as Mac OS X should be okay. iOS should be happy, although Jelly Bean (Android) currently has a broken implementation. Windows Mobile and Windows Phone is still a little dodgy, and Blackberry, well, let's not even go there :-). I've been looking at the IPv6 feature set coming in 2.1, and I'm quite happy, to say the least. Cheers, Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
