Not too much related, but I am. I'm using a multi-wan connection to different ISP who give me dynamic IP address. I set up the Internet connection via a couple of different routers, one for each ISP.
The difference in my configuration is that the routers connect to the ISP via PPPoA and PF is connected to the routers via regular IP local subnet connection (no PPPoE/PPPoA on PF). This way everything works fine, asterisk on the LAN side of PF too, even when one or both of the public IPs are changed. In case of failure of one (or the other) of the ISP connections, asterisk connects with no problem to the VoIP provider, no matter on which is the active or preferred gateway. O. -- On Sept. 26th 2014 15:51:37, Hannes Werner wrote: > thank you very much Giles, but unfortunately it doesn't help. > > anyone here who is using asterisk behind pfSense on a dynamic IP WAN > successfully? > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Giles Coochey <gi...@coochey.net> wrote: > > On 26/09/2014 12:42, Hannes Werner wrote: > >> are you saying that people with dynamic IP shouldn't use pfSense > >> behind an Asterisk service? I've had asterisk running behind Fritz-Box > >> for years without any trouble. I've seen the cheapest router being > >> able to handle this like the speedports. I can't believe pfSense is > >> unable to do this, but it doesn't matter a clear word would solve the > >> problem for all the time and you do not have to worry again about this > >> issue. > >> > >> maybe you guys do better telling those users to change there router? > > > > It's not my place, either, to pass comment on what free software you > > should > > decide to use, I am also none other than a happy end user (with a PPPoE > > service on at least one of my pfsense boxes, but with a static IP). > > > > Doesn't ensuring that you have Gateway monitoring enabled, and then > > ensuring that you have, under System --> Advanced --> Miscelleaneous --> > > "State Killing on Gateway Failure" enabled provide a workaround > > resolution for you? I'm referring to > > https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3181 which is referenced from #1629. > > > > Also it's clear that bug #1629 is pushed out to 2.2, although the latest > > comment is for it to be addressed, or to push it out to 2.3. It's probably > > not good news for you, but it looks like there is a schedule for it to be > > fixed.... just not very quickly. > > > > Do bear in mind that the original PPP software was designed for > > opportunistic on-demand dial-up connections, and isn't perfectly suited > > for > > running server side applications on the client end. PPPoE & PPPoA built on > > this, I guess, to allow ISPs to continue to use their RADIUS > > infrastructure > > for customers authentication as they moved to broadband / cable based > > connections. > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Giles Coochey, CCNP, CCNA, CCNAS > > NetSecSpec Ltd > > +44 (0) 8444 780677 > > +44 (0) 7584 634135 > > http://www.coochey.net > > http://www.netsecspec.co.uk > > gi...@coochey.net > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > List mailing list > > List@lists.pfsense.org > > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
