Re: [pfSense] Limiter on WAN based on time?
This might be what I did incorrectly… The firewall was delivered this afternoon and we’ll see if it’s even needed now (politics, guh). > On May 24, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Steve Yates wrote: > > The schedules are created under Firewall/Schedules and then can be applied to > a limiter. On a limiter you'd need at least two Bandwidth entries, one for > each schedule (day/night). > > -- > > Steve Yates > ITS, Inc. > > -Original Message- > From: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Coleman > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:00 AM > To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List > Subject: [pfSense] Limiter on WAN based on time? > > So I’ve tried floating rules (blocks all traffic outside of schedule) and LAN > rules (limits 24/7 or blocks outside of schedule). > > How do I throttle WAN from 9am to 10pm, say, and then open it up after hours? > > > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Jeppe Øland wrote: > Is the "NanoBSD filesystem is mounted r/w" a temporary thing until you fix > these issues? > No. The issue is some flash media is really slow to rw->ro mount. We used to carry a forcesync patch to forcefully un-mount it without the drive saying it was safe to do so. While we never saw any indications of that causing issues, it was removed because it's unsafe. Since then, many have had to set permanent rw for that reason, and it got worse. Being rw doesn't really change anything other than not jumping through a bunch of mount/remount hoops. The things that get written to often are still in RAM disk. ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
Is the "NanoBSD filesystem is mounted r/w" a temporary thing until you fix these issues? On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Karl Fife wrote: > > On 5/24/2016 2:30 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:25 PM, WebDawg wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chris Buechler > wrote: > >>> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, WebDawg wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Chris Buechler > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM, OSN | Marian Fischer > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi list, > >>> > >>> when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest > update > >> > >> (2.3.1) it fails after > >>> > >>> # snip > >>> Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... > >>> Unable to update repository pfSense-core > >>> Updating pfSense repository catalogue... > >>> # snip > >>> > >>> the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF > >>> nano > >> > >> install. > >>> > >>> any solution out there? > >> > >> Diag>NanoBSD, set to permanent rw, and reboot for good measure. It > >> work > >> then? > >> ___ > >> > > > > I have a few pfSense devices that I purchased, do I need to set > > permanent > > rw on them for 2.3.1? > > If you have problems with them, yes. Once upgraded to 2.3.1, they'll > be set permanent rw with no option to go ro. > > >>> > >>> So if I already have them up to 2.3.1, I am fine. > >> > >> Yes. > >> ___ > >> pfSense mailing list > >> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > >> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > > > > > > So is the R/O,R/W issue the same cause as here? > > > > No. There is some issue in that case where pkg's status reporting has > a problem with nanobsd, where it makes the GUI think it failed, but > it's actually successful and still running fine in the background. The > upgrade still completed fine. > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Karl Fife wrote: > On 5/24/2016 2:30 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:25 PM, WebDawg wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, WebDawg wrote: > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Chris Buechler wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM, OSN | Marian Fischer wrote: >>> >>> Hi list, >>> >>> when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest update >> >> (2.3.1) it fails after >>> >>> # snip >>> Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... >>> Unable to update repository pfSense-core >>> Updating pfSense repository catalogue... >>> # snip >>> >>> the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF >>> nano >> >> install. >>> >>> any solution out there? >> >> Diag>NanoBSD, set to permanent rw, and reboot for good measure. It >> work >> then? >> ___ >> > > I have a few pfSense devices that I purchased, do I need to set > permanent > rw on them for 2.3.1? If you have problems with them, yes. Once upgraded to 2.3.1, they'll be set permanent rw with no option to go ro. >>> >>> So if I already have them up to 2.3.1, I am fine. >> >> Yes. >> ___ >> pfSense mailing list >> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > > > So is the R/O,R/W issue the same cause as here? > No. There is some issue in that case where pkg's status reporting has a problem with nanobsd, where it makes the GUI think it failed, but it's actually successful and still running fine in the background. The upgrade still completed fine. ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
On 5/24/2016 2:30 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:25 PM, WebDawg wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, WebDawg wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Chris Buechler wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM, OSN | Marian Fischer wrote: Hi list, when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest update (2.3.1) it fails after # snip Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... Unable to update repository pfSense-core Updating pfSense repository catalogue... # snip the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF nano install. any solution out there? Diag>NanoBSD, set to permanent rw, and reboot for good measure. It work then? ___ I have a few pfSense devices that I purchased, do I need to set permanent rw on them for 2.3.1? If you have problems with them, yes. Once upgraded to 2.3.1, they'll be set permanent rw with no option to go ro. So if I already have them up to 2.3.1, I am fine. Yes. ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold So is the R/O,R/W issue the same cause as here? thusly: https://imagebin.ca/v/2hkICOAnJnbs Log: http://pastebin.com/vFMqWNHK If the update wizard reports "update failed", but post reboot it reports 2.3.1, and my 'failed' updates all show NanoBSD mounted R/W, and show v 2.3.1. Any cause for concern, or reason to suspect that the system might be in an unusual state? ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:25 PM, WebDawg wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: > >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, WebDawg wrote: >> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Chris Buechler >> wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM, OSN | Marian Fischer >> wrote: >> >> > Hi list, >> >> > >> >> > when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest update >> >> (2.3.1) it fails after >> >> > >> >> > # snip >> >> > Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... >> >> > Unable to update repository pfSense-core >> >> > Updating pfSense repository catalogue... >> >> > # snip >> >> > >> >> > the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF nano >> >> install. >> >> > >> >> > any solution out there? >> >> >> >> Diag>NanoBSD, set to permanent rw, and reboot for good measure. It work >> >> then? >> >> ___ >> >> >> > >> > >> > I have a few pfSense devices that I purchased, do I need to set permanent >> > rw on them for 2.3.1? >> >> If you have problems with them, yes. Once upgraded to 2.3.1, they'll >> be set permanent rw with no option to go ro. >> > > > So if I already have them up to 2.3.1, I am fine. Yes. ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, WebDawg wrote: > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Chris Buechler > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM, OSN | Marian Fischer > wrote: > >> > Hi list, > >> > > >> > when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest update > >> (2.3.1) it fails after > >> > > >> > # snip > >> > Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... > >> > Unable to update repository pfSense-core > >> > Updating pfSense repository catalogue... > >> > # snip > >> > > >> > the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF nano > >> install. > >> > > >> > any solution out there? > >> > >> Diag>NanoBSD, set to permanent rw, and reboot for good measure. It work > >> then? > >> ___ > >> > > > > > > I have a few pfSense devices that I purchased, do I need to set permanent > > rw on them for 2.3.1? > > If you have problems with them, yes. Once upgraded to 2.3.1, they'll > be set permanent rw with no option to go ro. > So if I already have them up to 2.3.1, I am fine. ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:28 PM, WebDawg wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Chris Buechler wrote: > >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM, OSN | Marian Fischer wrote: >> > Hi list, >> > >> > when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest update >> (2.3.1) it fails after >> > >> > # snip >> > Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... >> > Unable to update repository pfSense-core >> > Updating pfSense repository catalogue... >> > # snip >> > >> > the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF nano >> install. >> > >> > any solution out there? >> >> Diag>NanoBSD, set to permanent rw, and reboot for good measure. It work >> then? >> ___ >> > > > I have a few pfSense devices that I purchased, do I need to set permanent > rw on them for 2.3.1? If you have problems with them, yes. Once upgraded to 2.3.1, they'll be set permanent rw with no option to go ro. ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Chris Buechler wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM, OSN | Marian Fischer wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest update > (2.3.1) it fails after > > > > # snip > > Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... > > Unable to update repository pfSense-core > > Updating pfSense repository catalogue... > > # snip > > > > the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF nano > install. > > > > any solution out there? > > Diag>NanoBSD, set to permanent rw, and reboot for good measure. It work > then? > ___ > I have a few pfSense devices that I purchased, do I need to set permanent rw on them for 2.3.1? ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Why can't we define a point-to-point OpenVPN using only IPv6?
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Olivier Mascia wrote: >> Le 24 mai 2016 à 17:56, Doug Lytle a écrit : >> >>> Is the IPv4 requirement something thats planned to be removed in future >>> releases? >>> >>> I don't assume many people have adopted IPv6 yet. >> >> Ensuring stable, robust and complete IPv6 (+IPv4) support was and is >> the primary goal for 2.4 >> >> IPv6-only was a non-goal so far, so nobody invested time into it yet - >> but of course, eventually nobody wants to bother with IPv4 anymore :-) >> >> Realistically, though, there's more pressing things to work on - like >> cipher negotiation (so you can upgrade encryption without having to >> roll out new configs to all your clients), actually *releasing* 2.4, etc. > > You're going too far compared to what I asked: I'm not asking for IPv6 only > support. > It just is that I have a need to create an OpenVPN tunnel between two sites > only transporting IPv6 He's just quoting a post to the OpenVPN list on said topic. You can transport only IPv6 across an OpenVPN tunnel, but you'll need an IPv4 tunnel network defined even if you don't use it. Requirement of OpenVPN. ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Why can't we define a point-to-point OpenVPN using only IPv6?
> Le 24 mai 2016 à 17:56, Doug Lytle a écrit : > >> Is the IPv4 requirement something thats planned to be removed in future >> releases? >> >> I don't assume many people have adopted IPv6 yet. > > Ensuring stable, robust and complete IPv6 (+IPv4) support was and is > the primary goal for 2.4 > > IPv6-only was a non-goal so far, so nobody invested time into it yet - > but of course, eventually nobody wants to bother with IPv4 anymore :-) > > Realistically, though, there's more pressing things to work on - like > cipher negotiation (so you can upgrade encryption without having to > roll out new configs to all your clients), actually *releasing* 2.4, etc. You're going too far compared to what I asked: I'm not asking for IPv6 only support. It just is that I have a need to create an OpenVPN tunnel between two sites only transporting IPv6 (I have an *other* tunnel using IPsec between these 2 sites for IPv4, but I'm fixing whatever bugs held me from successfully tunneling IPv6 between those two sites through IPsec by adding another IPv6 only tunnel using OpenVPN. For sure a world without IPv4 is not for tomorrow, I don't think this is a goal in itself either. Though, IPv6 is *very* important in significant portions of the world *today* (and *yesterday* too). Generally I have no real problems with pfSense with IPv6. The software is excellent (and the labeled hardware too). Except recently between an old 2.2.2 (which I can't upgrade to 2.2.6 or 2.3.x) and a 2.3.x which gave me headaches trying to get IPv6 to get through IPsec. I finally abandoned the idea of it between those two sites. Oh side note: since initial post I *could* setup the IPv6-only site-to-site tunnel. I just had to trick, giving OpenVPN an IPv4 tunnel subnet as it insisted for, but did not declare any local or remote IPv4 subnets (to route between sites). Works for me, both tunnels (IPsec IPv4 and OpenVPN IPv6) are now happily living next to each other. That's a temporary solution for 1 to 3 months, then the old site with 2.2.2 will disappear. Of course the downside of this trick is that my IPv6 traffic is so much slower through OpenVPN than through IPsec. It is even asymmetric: A to B is 10 times faster (about 200 Mbps) than B to A (about 20 Mbps when sun shines, ~15 Mbps in other times) through the OpenVPN tunnel. The IPv4 is much better served through the IPsec tunnel (similar speeds both ways, and they're at about 500 Mbps, sometimes a little bit higher. I know from a previous discussion here why this speed difference between IPsec and OpenVPN. Thanks ! -- Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Best Regards, Olivier Mascia, integral.be/om ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Limiter on WAN based on time?
The schedules are created under Firewall/Schedules and then can be applied to a limiter. On a limiter you'd need at least two Bandwidth entries, one for each schedule (day/night). -- Steve Yates ITS, Inc. -Original Message- From: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Coleman Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 10:00 AM To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List Subject: [pfSense] Limiter on WAN based on time? So I’ve tried floating rules (blocks all traffic outside of schedule) and LAN rules (limits 24/7 or blocks outside of schedule). How do I throttle WAN from 9am to 10pm, say, and then open it up after hours? ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:33 AM, OSN | Marian Fischer wrote: > Hi list, > > when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest update (2.3.1) > it fails after > > # snip > Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... > Unable to update repository pfSense-core > Updating pfSense repository catalogue... > # snip > > the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF nano > install. > > any solution out there? Diag>NanoBSD, set to permanent rw, and reboot for good measure. It work then? ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] Why can't we define a point-to-point OpenVPN using only IPv6?
The below was recently posted on the OpenVPN mailing list: "Hi, On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:44:45PM -0400, Ryan Whelan wrote: > Is the IPv4 requirement something thats planned to be removed in future > releases? > > I don't assume many people have adopted IPv6 yet. Ensuring stable, robust and complete IPv6 (+IPv4) support was and is the primary goal for 2.4 IPv6-only was a non-goal so far, so nobody invested time into it yet - but of course, eventually nobody wants to bother with IPv4 anymore :-) Realistically, though, there's more pressing things to work on - like cipher negotiation (so you can upgrade encryption without having to roll out new configs to all your clients), actually *releasing* 2.4, etc. gert -- USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! //www.muc.de/~gert/ Gert Doering - Munich, Germany" ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
[pfSense] Why can't we define a point-to-point OpenVPN using only IPv6?
Trying to setup a point to point OpenVPN tunnel using UDP6 only, the GUI refuses it (server side), insisting on also having an IPv4 tunnel subnet. Same thing on the client side setup of the tunnel. Is this inherent to OpenVPN itself or an overlooked detail of the pfSense UI? -- Meilleures salutations, Met vriendelijke groeten, Best Regards, Olivier Mascia, integral.be/om ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] pfSense switch
Yes. You need to make sure that any firewall rules to allow LAN traffic are applied to the bridge instead of to just a single interface (whichever interface used to be your LAN). Moshe -- Moshe Katz -- mo...@ymkatz.net -- +1(301)867-3732 On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:24 AM, FrancisM wrote: > Hi Moshe, > > Is there any other setting I need to do after configuring the bridge and > Lan because i tried this and when i plug my AP wifi still okay and followed > by my Seagate NAS suddenly my network become unstable. Im sure the NAS and > Wifi is working before I plug because they are active using the 10Mb 4 port > switch > > On Tuesday, 24 May 2016, Moshe Katz wrote: > > > Yes, you can, but don't expect the performance to be as good as a real > > switch. What the real switch is doing in hardware, you will be doing in > > software. > > > > To do this, you need to add those ports to a "Bridge" interface and set > > that bridge to be your LAN. > > > > Moshe > > > > -- > > Moshe Katz > > -- mo...@ymkatz.net > > -- +1(301)867-3732 > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:09 AM, FrancisM > > > > wrote: > > > > > If i have multiple nic port in my server let say i have 3pcs of pci > card > > > with 4 port each card, 12 ports in total. Can I create a layer 2 switch > > for > > > the 10ports that are not in use using the pfsense? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > This email or attachments may contain confidential or legally > privileged > > > information intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). Any use, > > > redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message, except as > > > intended, is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please > > notify > > > the sender and reformat your hard drive to remove all copies of the > > > message, including any attachments; failure to do so may result in your > > > floppy drive being filled with jelly. Any views or opinions expressed > in > > > this email (unless otherwise stated) may not represent those of the > > Vatican > > > City, George W Bush, or the Sisters of the Perpetual Motion. Cheers > > [image: > > > ] > > > ___ > > > pfSense mailing list > > > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > > ___ > > pfSense mailing list > > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > > > > -- > > This email or attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged > information intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). Any use, > redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message, except as > intended, is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify > the sender and reformat your hard drive to remove all copies of the > message, including any attachments; failure to do so may result in your > floppy drive being filled with jelly. Any views or opinions expressed in > this email (unless otherwise stated) may not represent those of the Vatican > City, George W Bush, or the Sisters of the Perpetual Motion. Cheers [image: > ] > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] pfSense switch
Hi Moshe, Is there any other setting I need to do after configuring the bridge and Lan because i tried this and when i plug my AP wifi still okay and followed by my Seagate NAS suddenly my network become unstable. Im sure the NAS and Wifi is working before I plug because they are active using the 10Mb 4 port switch On Tuesday, 24 May 2016, Moshe Katz wrote: > Yes, you can, but don't expect the performance to be as good as a real > switch. What the real switch is doing in hardware, you will be doing in > software. > > To do this, you need to add those ports to a "Bridge" interface and set > that bridge to be your LAN. > > Moshe > > -- > Moshe Katz > -- mo...@ymkatz.net > -- +1(301)867-3732 > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:09 AM, FrancisM > > wrote: > > > If i have multiple nic port in my server let say i have 3pcs of pci card > > with 4 port each card, 12 ports in total. Can I create a layer 2 switch > for > > the 10ports that are not in use using the pfsense? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > This email or attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged > > information intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). Any use, > > redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message, except as > > intended, is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please > notify > > the sender and reformat your hard drive to remove all copies of the > > message, including any attachments; failure to do so may result in your > > floppy drive being filled with jelly. Any views or opinions expressed in > > this email (unless otherwise stated) may not represent those of the > Vatican > > City, George W Bush, or the Sisters of the Perpetual Motion. Cheers > [image: > > ] > > ___ > > pfSense mailing list > > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold -- This email or attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). Any use, redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message, except as intended, is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and reformat your hard drive to remove all copies of the message, including any attachments; failure to do so may result in your floppy drive being filled with jelly. Any views or opinions expressed in this email (unless otherwise stated) may not represent those of the Vatican City, George W Bush, or the Sisters of the Perpetual Motion. Cheers [image: ] ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Re: [pfSense] pfSense switch
Yes, you can, but don't expect the performance to be as good as a real switch. What the real switch is doing in hardware, you will be doing in software. To do this, you need to add those ports to a "Bridge" interface and set that bridge to be your LAN. Moshe -- Moshe Katz -- mo...@ymkatz.net -- +1(301)867-3732 On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:09 AM, FrancisM wrote: > If i have multiple nic port in my server let say i have 3pcs of pci card > with 4 port each card, 12 ports in total. Can I create a layer 2 switch for > the 10ports that are not in use using the pfsense? > > > > -- > > This email or attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged > information intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). Any use, > redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message, except as > intended, is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify > the sender and reformat your hard drive to remove all copies of the > message, including any attachments; failure to do so may result in your > floppy drive being filled with jelly. Any views or opinions expressed in > this email (unless otherwise stated) may not represent those of the Vatican > City, George W Bush, or the Sisters of the Perpetual Motion. Cheers [image: > ] > ___ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
[pfSense] pfSense switch
If i have multiple nic port in my server let say i have 3pcs of pci card with 4 port each card, 12 ports in total. Can I create a layer 2 switch for the 10ports that are not in use using the pfsense? -- This email or attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the addressee(s). Any use, redistribution, disclosure, or reproduction of this message, except as intended, is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and reformat your hard drive to remove all copies of the message, including any attachments; failure to do so may result in your floppy drive being filled with jelly. Any views or opinions expressed in this email (unless otherwise stated) may not represent those of the Vatican City, George W Bush, or the Sisters of the Perpetual Motion. Cheers [image: ] ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
[pfSense] Limiter on WAN based on time?
So I’ve tried floating rules (blocks all traffic outside of schedule) and LAN rules (limits 24/7 or blocks outside of schedule). How do I throttle WAN from 9am to 10pm, say, and then open it up after hours? ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
[pfSense] How to manually update 2.3 onwards?
I have a pfSense 2.3.0_1 which has had an issue connecting to pfsense.com to check for updates for years. That's not the issue, as far as I believe. Perhaps its LAN and WAN are mistakenly the wrong way around. It routes between two LANs. Anyway I always update it manually by downloading a tgz file. With 2.3.0_1 it appears to offer no means of manually updating, giving these error messages on the System > Update screen [1]. I see the release notes say "Removed "full update" or "full slice" upgrade for systems on 2.3 to later versions" - is this what I am seeing? How do I manually update pfSense now please? [1] "The following input errors were detected: ERROR: Error trying to get packages list. Aborting... pkg: repository meta /var/db/pkg/pfSense-core.meta has wrong version or wrong format pkg: No signature found pkg: No signature found pkg: repository meta /var/db/pkg/pfSense.meta has wrong version or wrong format pkg: No signature found pkg: No signature found pkg: repository meta /var/db/pkg/pfSense-core.meta has wrong version or wrong format pkg: Repository pfSense-core cannot be opened. 'pkg update' required pkg: repository meta /var/db/pkg/pfSense.meta has wrong version or wrong format pkg: Repository pfSense cannot be opened. 'pkg update' required ERROR: Error trying to get packages list. Aborting... pkg: repository meta /var/db/pkg/pfSense-core.meta has wrong version or wrong format pkg: No signature found pkg: No signature found pkg: repository meta /var/db/pkg/pfSense.meta has wrong version or wrong format pkg: No signature found pkg: No signature found pkg: repository meta /var/db/pkg/pfSense-core.meta has wrong version or wrong format pkg: Repository pfSense-core cannot be opened. 'pkg update' required pkg: repository meta /var/db/pkg/pfSense.meta has wrong version or wrong format pkg: Repository pfSense cannot be opened. 'pkg update' required" Thanks -- Pete Boyd Open Plan IT - http://openplanit.co.uk The Golden Ear - http://thegoldenear.org ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
[pfSense] Update 2.3_1 to 2.3.1 failed
Hi list, when i try to update one carp member from 2.3_1 to the latest update (2.3.1) it fails after # snip Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... Unable to update repository pfSense-core Updating pfSense repository catalogue... # snip the other member did the update well. Both are running on 4GB CF nano install. any solution out there? cm3c ___ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
