: aoz@gmail.com
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] xen aware pfsense.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 16:19, pfsense sense pfse...@kavadas.org wrote:
point taken but it wouldn't be adding [file | virtual | foo] server
features it would only be pfsense -- VT
i'm
I think he understood,
He did :-).
but was suggesting other virtualization ideas that he felt would be a more
rewarding use of developer resources.
Indeed and stay within the scope of what Scott et al have delivered with bells
on over the past several years.
Greg
From: pfsense sense [pfse...@kavadas.org]
Sent: 28 January 2009 00:42
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense-discussion] xen aware pfsense.
has anyone considered the possibility of intergrating xen with pfsense ?
i might be loosing my mind but wouldn't it be nice
on PFSense. A complete waste of
time.
Greg
--
*From:* pfsense sense [pfse...@kavadas.org]
*Sent:* 28 January 2009 00:42
*To:* discussion@pfsense.com
*Subject:* [pfSense-discussion] xen aware pfsense.
has anyone considered the possibility of intergrating
- Original Message -
From: pfsense sense pfse...@kavadas.org
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:13:42 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] xen aware pfsense.
multiple concurrent PFSense instances
no, you have also missed my point... i'm
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 15:31, pfsense sense pfse...@kavadas.org wrote:
Ignoring the lack of Xen dom0 support in FreeBSD for a moment, of course.
I definitely misunderstood your original post, my apologies. That
being said, there isn't and doesn't soon look to be much motion within
FreeBSD to
point taken but it wouldn't be adding [file | virtual | foo] server
features it would only be pfsense -- VT
i'm no security expert, in any stretch of the imagination, I would have
expected that the suggested addition of a dom0 would/could be fully
protected, due to dom0 sitting behind pfsense,
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 16:19, pfsense sense pfse...@kavadas.org wrote:
point taken but it wouldn't be adding [file | virtual | foo] server
features it would only be pfsense -- VT
i'm no security expert, in any stretch of the imagination, I would have
expected that the suggested addition of a
has anyone considered the possibility of intergrating xen with pfsense ?
i might be loosing my mind but wouldn't it be nice to have a pfsense running
on harware and a vistualization environemnt that allow us to install our
OS's of choice perfectly protected behind pfsense ?
does anything else
@pfsense.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:42:18 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [pfSense-discussion] xen aware pfsense.
has anyone considered the possibility of intergrating xen with pfsense ?
i might be loosing my mind but wouldn't it be nice to have a pfsense running on
harware
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 17:42, pfsense sense pfse...@kavadas.org wrote:
has anyone considered the possibility of intergrating xen with pfsense ?
i might be loosing my mind but wouldn't it be nice to have a pfsense running
on harware and a vistualization environemnt that allow us to install our
i'm not suggesting pfsense be run inside a VM, i am suggesting pfsense
provide VM functionality
i'm fully aware the VM's shortcomings, i manage a 14TB ESX cluster
let me say that again...
i am suggesting pfsense provide VM functionality cloud -- pfsense --
os -- service
On Wed, Jan
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:15 PM, pfsense sense pfse...@kavadas.org wrote:
i'm not suggesting pfsense be run inside a VM, i am suggesting pfsense
provide VM functionality
i'm fully aware the VM's shortcomings, i manage a 14TB ESX cluster
let me say that again...
i am suggesting pfsense
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:15 PM, pfsense sense pfse...@kavadas.org wrote:
i'm not suggesting pfsense be run inside a VM, i am suggesting pfsense
provide VM functionality
Refer back to my earlier post.
-
To unsubscribe,
14 matches
Mail list logo
