On Wed 27 Jul 2016 13:40:16 NZST +1200, Chris Buechler wrote:

> > I find this really really annoying of pfsense! Especially for headless
> > systems. Hey, why run with only one interface and some functionality
> > missing when one can run with functionality of zero point zero instead?
> Because any fall back there is potentially unsafe. Say you have
> igb0-igb5, and igb2 dies. Now your igb3 is igb2, igb4 is igb3, etc.
> Any assumptions you make about what's correct are potentially
> dangerous, and likely to be wrong. We've had discussions around that
> in greater depth multiple times over the years. Any way you do it has
> edge case bugs, is dangerous and/or wouldn't be right anyway.

So the root cause of the problem is not to be able to bind pfsense
interfaces to ports (whether this is the OS's fault or not is not
something a user cares about).

In my case the USB interface runs the wifi. I can do without that
easily. But not getting access to pfsense on the LAN port on a headless
APU-4 because the USB dongle is unplugged, dead, or whatever and
therefore my wifi may be offline sure does look braindead to me. Sorry.


Volker Kuhlmann                 is list0570 with the domain in header.
http://volker.top.geek.nz/      Please do not CC list postings to me.
pfSense mailing list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Reply via email to