Hello,
I've been watching pfsense and testing it for a while
but I went one step further: I now actually use it...
and I just begin to learn all his possibilities...
Thank you for the good work!!!
Anyaway I had a problem upgrading it:
Platform: epia 800 fanless + no-name ethernet card +
On 8/25/05, Damien Dupertuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I re-installed the whole thing from the beggining and
waited.
Today I saw the 0.79.4 version. Again I installed it
and the same problem arise...
Anybody with a similar problem?
Did you restore your config file from .79? If so, please
Is this always supposed to be a /32? I'm using /32 on all of them right
now and it works but it still seems to me that since its asking for the
netmask of that ip that I should be using /24 (192.168.1.0 network) for
the private gw vips and /27 (which is what my public ip range is) for
the public
On FreeBSD /32 works just fine for aliases.
Scott
On 8/25/05, Matthew Lenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this always supposed to be a /32? I'm using /32 on all of them right
now and it works but it still seems to me that since its asking for the
netmask of that ip that I should be using /24
Ooops...reply all Bill reply all!
--Bill
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Aug 25, 2005 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] carp netmask
To: Matthew Lenz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actual netmask of the network the CARP address lives on...a /32
ok.. I guess the only reason I thought any more about it is because I
get errors like the following in my system log from time to time:
Aug 24 12:30:58 kernel: arp_rtrequest: bad gateway 192.168.2.1 (!
AF_LINK)
Aug 24 12:30:58 kernel: arp_rtrequest: bad gateway 192.168.3.1 (!
AF_LINK)
Aug 24
Mine has done that since day one but has never hurt anything. Seems cosmetic.
Scott
On 8/25/05, Matthew Lenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok.. I guess the only reason I thought any more about it is because I
get errors like the following in my system log from time to time:
Aug 24 12:30:58
Maybe it was a bug in that specific version of pfSense I was using at
the time because i couldn't get the network to function until i changed
them to /32's. Maybe I'll give it a shot again at some point.
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:21 -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
Actual netmask of the network the
Does pfsense support NAT-Traversal ?
Thanx.
HT. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
__
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
Not as of yet.
Scott
On 8/25/05, Homero Thomsom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does pfsense support NAT-Traversal ?
Thanx.
HT. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
__
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu
Yeah, changing CARP addresses after configuration is a little tricky.
I need to sit down and play with that code a bit, I suspect we don't
do it quite right. A reboot is a GOOD idea if you modify anything to
do with a CARP address after it's already in place.
--Bill
On 8/25/05, Matthew Lenz
Does our IPSec implementation support it, or does NAT-T on a client
behind the pfSense box work? To the former, no. To the latter, yes.
--Bill
On 8/25/05, Homero Thomsom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does pfsense support NAT-Traversal ?
Thanx.
HT. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
want to connect from my work PC to my home PC.
Previously I used PPTP (m0n0wall PPTP redirection) and
it worked well.
At the moment, the firewall rules are changed and it
blocks all the ports except MSN Messenger Port (I
don't remember the port number).
I try to NAT the PPTP connection Port to
On 8/25/05, Homero Thomsom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment, the firewall rules are changed and it
blocks all the ports except MSN Messenger Port (I
don't remember the port number).
I try to NAT the PPTP connection Port to the PPTP
Server (Windows 2000) but is imposible to forward the
I just installed squid... Do I need to open up port 3128 for the
tranparency to be available?
--
Kim C. Callis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a
Howdee, I now have (thanks to the list) a working 4
nic firewall supporting dual WAN, LAN DMZ interfaces. All is well with the
firewall and it has been running flawless now the last couple of days. Until
now, all of my LAN clients as well as our servers have been on a big fat
172.16.0.0/12
It's all automatic. Or should be..
Scott
On 8/25/05, Kim C. Callis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just installed squid... Do I need to open up port 3128 for the
tranparency to be available?
--
Kim C. Callis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
A human being should be
Squid fails to start when DNS check fails producing
this error log:
2005/08/25 14:10:10| Performing DNS Tests...
FATAL: ipcache_init: DNS name lookup tests failed.
Squid Cache (Version 2.5.STABLE10): Terminated
abnormally.
This happens when my ISP's DNS isn't available, e.g.
ISP is down
Done! Uninstall squid and reinstall for the change to take effect or run:
Scott
On 8/25/05, Albert Miles Enabe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Squid fails to start when DNS check fails producing
this error log:
2005/08/25 14:10:10| Performing DNS Tests...
FATAL: ipcache_init: DNS name lookup
On 8/25/05, Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Done! Uninstall squid and reinstall for the change to take effect or run:
or run... must be a scary problem. ;)
-cmb
On 8/25/05, Homero Thomsom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have understood that Nat-t works encapsulating the
protocols (AH or ESP) within a UDP datagram. It is
not thus?
actually, yeah, it is only UDP 500 and 4500. But you can't define
what ports it uses, so since you say you only have one
Quoting Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's all automatic. Or should be..
Scott
The Transparent proxy FW rule works till the first firmware update. After, you
have to manually create it to have Transparent Proxy working. Hope it will be
fixed soon.
Best regards,
Dmitry
I had an interesting thing happen today. The watchdog (atleast thats what
the system log called it) on my WAN interface reset the WAN interface (any
idea why that would have happened?) which caused all my outbound NAT to
longer work. All my private gw (LAN/OPT*) carp interfaces/ips were still
On 8/26/05, Matthew Lenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The watchdog (atleast thats what
the system log called it) on my WAN interface reset the WAN interface (any
idea why that would have happened?)
various reasons. I have some Broadcom gig NIC's (bge) onboard on Dell
2550 servers that like to do
24 matches
Mail list logo
