On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Odhiambo Washington odhia...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello Everyone,
I am new to pfsense - using it for the first time, though I've known about
it all these years.
Kindly bear with me on this one.
I am running *2.0-RC2* and I've been trying to achieve a few things
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Tortise tort...@paradise.net.nz wrote:
- Original Message - From: John Dakos gda...@enovation.gr
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:57 PM
Subject: RE: [pfSense-discussion] article: Millions of Home Routers at Risk
Re pf.jpg
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Roland Giesler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use 9488 static route entries
m0n0wall and pfSense aren't exactly designed to work with 9500 static
routes (is anything? if you need 9500
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm thinking about trying the full instead of embedded
install on WRAP/ALIX devices, on compact flash. With increased
sizes and better flash it seems a year or a couple is a reasonable
lifetime to expect in a domestic usage
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.provos.org/index.php?/pages/dnstest.html
DNS Resolver Test
For secure name resolution, it is important that your DNS resolver uses
random source ports. The box below will tell you if there is something you
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM, muhammad panji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the answer Chris. Several months ago I help my friend setup
his WRT54GL but as I remember this AP have no option on set it up as a
bridge. Must I do a firmware upgrade? will it void the warranty?
Considering
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Tortise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes I am using 192.168.0.0/24
I have no devices from those manufacturers.
This was not the response I wanted to hear, changing the LAN is a major(!)
H, more or less major than the incidents that prompted this dicussion?
Look at the mailing list archive please. Matthias May answered your
question on the 14th of March.
--Bill
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:18 AM, John Dakos [ Enovation Technologies ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello all.
a question.
we have 1 lan 2 wan
and load balance for 2 wans
we dont
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Dennis Karlsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I get lots of these in the System log.
miniupnpd[96542]: sendto(udp_notify): No buffer space available
I read this;
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=7058.0;prev_next=next The
miniupnpd developer
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Jan Hoevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Marquette wrote on 23-3-2008 18:54:
PS. It's probably worth noting that I'm also the author of the
existing annoying wizard.
Sorry about that qualification Bill. The fact that it cannot be bypassed
annoyed me
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Jan Hoevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is 100% completely open source. The source ported to RELENG_1_2 is
even in the public CVS server in its own branch. It's just the images
including it are not publicly available. It was back ported as a thanks
to
PS. It's probably worth noting that I'm also the author of the
existing annoying wizard.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Fabio C Flores [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ifconfig em1 shows me the following:
...
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX half-duplex)
status: active
On the other side the switch is full-duplex. How can I setup the
interface to be full-duplex and not
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:00 PM, jason whitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i may be wrong here however i thought there was a default time server sync
setup in the config?
There is. Look in System-General. Bottom of the page I believe.
--Bill
On Dec 24, 2007 5:41 AM, Paul M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Marquette wrote:
or others that could make use of mechanisms like dynamic allocation of
port.
That could cause you problems potentially. But would be no different
in any other firewall that didn't already understand your
On Dec 22, 2007 2:22 AM, Paolo Gentili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway i still have some little doubts on implementing a DMZ containing all
the servers, behind NAT.
This because i don't know how pfsense's NAT implementation can handle the
new internet applications/protocols
like AJAX or
I'm not sure, based on your email, if the pfSense box is in front of
the PPTP server or not. If t is, then go to the VPN menu, select
PPTP, on Configuration tab, select Redirect incoming PPTP
connections to: radio button and fill in the text box (PPTP
redirection) with the IP address of your
That's a standalone setting. You don't want the frickin' package
(which as Chris mentioned, may be broken anyway) if you use this
setting.
--Bill
On Nov 19, 2007 12:06 PM, Luciano Areal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bill!
The pfSense box is in front of the PPTP server. In other ways, it will
Assuming I ftp at home (don't recall the last time I intentionally did
that!) then ftp works just fine via the primary wan as Chris mentions.
I think I did have to create a rule for traffic destined to 127.0.0.1
to use the default gateway instead of a load balance pool. Don't
recall if that's
On 9/19/07, Paul M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zied Fakhfakh wrote:
Hello everybody,
I'm just starting with pfSense, nd I have a couple of questions
- is there any logout button from the web interface ?
it uses basic authentication, so you have to close browser (FYI, it's a
long running
On 8/31/07, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 11:48:07AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
I'm defining firewall rules according to
http://pfsense.trendchiller.com/transparent_firewall.pdf
but they seem to get ignored. There's a comment which says
the logic is
and attempt to load it.
--Bill
On 8/31/07, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:31:37AM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
If those are all the rules you have, we must have loaded the fallback
(bootup) ruleset. Try a pfctl -nf /tmp/rules.debug and post the
Dang. I
On 8/31/07, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:56:27AM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
Not sure how you got into this state - it appears that the boot
stopped at some point (maybe console would have or did have more
I rebooted the machine -- unfortunately
Just to add/restate some of the things said in this conversation.
FreeBSD 6.2 (which pfSense is based on) cannot run under Xen - while
it may be possible to run it with hardware virtualization under Xen,
I'd recommend against it at this time. It does however run perfectly
fine on both VMWare
On 6/19/07, Greg Hennessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mixing different trust levels on the same switch is rather frowned
upon.
Because of potential vulnerabilities in the switch OS, allowing an
attacker to reassign VLANs?
Yes. The switch may be in a locked cabinet/cage, but never say never
On 6/19/07, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:47:22PM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
Low end switches have a tendency to not have enough ram or cpu to
handle a high volume mac spoofing attack and will usually end up
If the switches are behind the pfsense firewall
If it works in FreeBSD 6.2, it'll probably work with pfSense. I do
know that HP DL145's work perfectly on FreeBSD 6.2 (including the
lights out management board which I have concerns on with the Sun
box). We ended up buying the DL145's (100+ units) cause Sun took two
months to get a unit to us
Heads up for those that are using snapshots - I just commited the
usermanager code from the HEAD branch to the RELENG_1 branch (this
won't go into 1.2). There may be some breakage in the tree - it was
tested pre-commit, but the diff was rather ugly so I'm not 100% sure
until the next snap run
On 4/4/07, Fabian Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks - this page helped me a lot getting started. My patches against HEAD. I
would be looking forward to seeing them committed.
Thanks, we're reviewing the patches now.
--Bill
On 4/4/07, Fabian Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore I would really be looking forward to adding this parameter to the
existing options that are passed to the dnsmasq binary. If any patches are
welcome, please let me know.
Patches are almost always welcome. I'd suggest in this case
On 3/9/07, Kyle Mott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is anybody interested? I've begun hacking together a package, would the
developers be interested in taking it as either a third-party package or
right into main-line pfSense? It does require some changes to the PHP
init scripts and the addition of a
Comment out the call to update_cvs_depot? Or update that routine to
better handle a development model that has no CVS access? I know, not
optimal, but FWIW, I wouldn't mind it if someone hacked in a method to
pull down the tree via other means (such as say mercurial, or
subversion) so you could
At this time we don't support the processor - I believe there's some
work in the FreeBSD camp to support the architecture. Whether the
rest of the hardware in that unit would be supported would remain to
be seen. 32M RAM and 16M flash are both rather light for pfSense, we
barely run in 64M
On 12/24/06, Peter May [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all.
Yep there is always someone that has to do things unlike everyone else
and I am that person.
I live remotely and have looked at Pfsense for traffic shaping as I have
a 2 way satellite feed. Here in Oz, its all I can get out back. Problem
As far as I know, nobody with commit access is working on this and I
haven't seen anything regarding someone else working on it.
--Bill
On 11/30/06, Nick Buraglio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any active development being done on the quagga package? I
noticed it's still on my local
Chris, you may want to update your address book entry for discussion@
- it's name isn't Bill Marquette :)
I can't answer your question though...I don't use OpenVPN, sorry.
-Bill
On 11/30/06, Chris Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone experienced problems with OpenVPN since the upgrade
On 11/16/06, qoska kotfare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On freebsd-net@ list was posted this maessage:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2006-November/012449.html
I don't know if any of you does follow this list but this code seems
properly written and can be extended to communicate
They'll likely configure the PPPoE tunnel with a /29 CIDR block (maybe
smaller, maybe larger, depending on addresses). You are correct, the
addresses will essentially just appear on the pfSense endpoint. All
you need to do to make use of them is create an other type virtual
IP (hey, for all
On 10/30/06, Holger Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bill,
i'm running a Acrosser AR-B1662. In other words that's a VIA Processor Eden
667 MHz Process with a VIA (r) Apollo PLE133T chipset and on-board 4 National
Semiconductor 83816, (10/100) NICs. It's got 256MMemory installed.
Why? Can
On 10/26/06, Greg Hennessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Being familiar with both platforms, you're out by the side of it TBH.
Pfsense has a lot of meaty goodness, however does not have bigip LTM style
ssl termination in any way or form.
They are not comparable.
Right. pfSense's load balancer
, but will
it work with m0n0wall or are there any other products that I can use on
a Soekris 4801 ... ?
Kind regards
Mikael Syska
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 19. oktober 2006 02:09
Til: discussion@pfsense.com
Emne: Re: [pfSense-discussion] 2 vpn
On 10/19/06, Raja Subramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The PF Pools FAQ:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.html
section Load Balance Outgoing Traffic, mentions the
following:
To ensure that packets with a source address belonging to
$ext_if1 are always routed to $ext_gw1 (and similarly
pf doesn't have any method of seperating out the isakmp or esp
traffic. There's been some talk of ipsec state code, but I don't know
when FreeBSD will see it (certainly not before it's implemented in
Opens pf I'm sure). If you have multiple IP addresses, you could use
1:1 nats to solve this (I
From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 18-10-2006 18:57
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] 2 vpn client connections from the same ip
does not work
pf doesn't have any method of seperating out the isakmp or esp
traffic. There's been some talk
On 10/4/06, Tommaso Di Donato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/4/06, Rainer Duffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least in this respect, pfSense is still a clear packet-filter only ;-)
And ideally, it should stay this way while analyzing packet-content
should occur elsewhere (because it also
On 10/4/06, Holger Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it sees everything. For example running at my WAN though nearly everything
is blocked it detects portscans too and will block this IP (if enabled) so it
can't start a bruteforce against my open ports. If you are lucky it will even
block
On 10/4/06, Donald Pulsipher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried to install the snort package but get an error. This was on my Soekris
embedded box with the embedded version 1.0-RC1a.
Two problems here.
1. RC1 is ancient, the snort package only works on RC3 and above
2. Embedded doesn't support
On 10/4/06, Donald Pulsipher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to my rough calculations, I can do maybe 40mbps throughput before I
peg the cpu. Or maybe I'm just dreaming, but I plan on testing it.
With a 4801 or wrap??? Try again :) We peg the CPU on those boards
well before 40mbit...I
On 10/3/06, Peter Allgeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 03.10.2006, 09:09 -0400 schrieb Scott Ullrich:
I am telling you how to solve your problem now, not long term. I
agree that the FTP system is a mess.
Ok, fine, how? At the moment I start the ftpsesame per hand after
booting
On 10/3/06, Peter Allgeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, as I told you already, the system_start_ftp_helpers() is launched
_after_ filter_configure_sync in /etc/rc.bootup. And ftpsesame is killed
by killall in system_start_ftp_helpers() after been started in
filter_configure_sync :-( So, you can
I randomly chose one of the mirrors and the tutorial came up for me.
--Bill
On 9/28/06, Richard Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was looking at the pfSense tutorial section and tried to connect to
configuring the captive portal with the integrated user manager .
All I got was dead links.
On 9/21/06, Sam Newnam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking about using something like this product too...
http://www.stillsecure.org/index.php?rf=vmw
Says it integrates with IP Tables... Quick thoughts on its compatibility
with PF?
It's a dedicated linux install.
--Bill
Or if you want fuck with the ISP and have a full blown network behind
the pfSense box.
Change the following line in /etc/inc/filter.inc
$rules .= scrub all {$scrubnodf} {$mssclamp} fragment
reassemble\n; // reassemble all directions
to:
$rules .= scrub all min-ttl 255 {$scrubnodf}
On 8/17/06, Raja Subramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a pfSense box with 5 wan links, 1 wan and 1 dmz and
the load balancing and policy based routing in pfSense is
simply fantastic.
The one missing feature that I would like to see, is the ability to
specify the source-hash or
Which version of ESX? Thanks
--Bill
On 8/16/06, Jason Tyler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was able to get it to work by building the VM in VMware workstation,
then copying the disk image to ESX and modifying the .vxd file.
Hope this helps,
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Scott Ullrich
And fixed.
--Bill
On 8/16/06, Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, reported to the cvstrac authors.
--Bill
On 8/16/06, Raja Subramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Viewing cvs revision history for /etc/inc/filter.inc by accessing
http://cvstrac.pfsense.com/rlog?f=pfSense/etc/inc
Hey, there was a bounty for the routed package, but the person
sponsoring this package isn't currently in a position to test it.
He's volunteered to send the funds on if we can get some people to
test it out and comment on it.
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=1271.msg9066#msg9066
Can I
on what I'm doing
wrong on the rules?
Allen
-Original Message-
From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:49 PM
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] load balancing - fail over
On 6/27/06, Allen Laymon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm
On 6/27/06, Allen Laymon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having an issue using load balancing/failover and using a Cisco VPN
client to connect to a remote machine. It's hit and miss whether or not the
Cisco VPN client works. It appears to go out one of my internet
connections, but can return on
On 6/26/06, Forrest Aldrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe something standarized - with XML formatted files?
It would be nice to issue a command, securely, from an internal machine
to update the PFSense firewall in either case.
Why doesn't PFSense use real Tables... ? Just curious about
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to move back to default m0n0wall design and artwork.
It is much superior in look and usability, imo. I would go so
far to file this as a bug.
That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll
have the ugly old
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:09:41PM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll
No trolling intended. I do really consider the current pfsense
artwork a major regression on m0n0wall look
On 6/6/06, Odette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I need to substitute our production firewall, and I'd like to use PFsense
which I've already successfully used for home or small office environments.
The solution I'm going to substitute is based on Linux-iptables which requires
more than
On 6/6/06, Chris Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah good idea, pfsense has Traffic Shaper in it.. I could play with
that and give P2Pa silly speed like 500 byte/sec heh.
There were some threads on this in the forum also. I believe someone
even went so far as to restrict the number of states
On 5/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have 3 WAN interfaces (WAN, OPT1 and OPT2)
I want to route packets to the WAN interfaces based on the source IP.
For example, 10.0.1.X/24 packets should be forwarded to WAN, 10.0.2.X/24
packets to OPT1 and 10.0.3.X/24
This happening on index.php, or when trying packages? Sounds like
there's a corrupt XML file floating around somewhere, usually this is
due to the machine getting powered off in 'odd' states.
--Bill
On 5/16/06, Gregory Machin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Lookis like I did the imposible and
On 5/16/06, Angelo Turetta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what about the case in original post?
He has installed the full version from CD-ROM to a CF (used as a hard
disk). I'm confident that such a setup results in a platform setting of
'pfsense'. If I later change the platform to 'embedded', can
On 5/16/06, Craig FALCONER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ahh cool thanks - I haven't rebooted a post beta2 machine yet :)
yeah, added for beta4 I believe :)
--Bill
On 5/2/06, Carl Youngblood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you are volunteerig to get this working? Keep in mind we do not
have endless amounts of resources.
I'm totally willing to help with this, but if the developers aren't
open to the idea, then it can be a really uphill battle. So I wanted
FWIW, while the lnc device reports as 10Mbit, it'll actually do more.
It's still slower than either the vmware tools driver or the e1000
interface, but it's definitely faster than 10Mbit.
--Bill
On 4/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm planning to get pfSense running
On 4/18/06, Gregory Machin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I'm looking for a list of dependancies for the web interface ...
I know it require php and and http server .. but are there any others..
Any advise would be grate..
Many Thanks
pfSense is a firewall distribution, not a standalone
On 4/11/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Previous message didn't seem to have come through, so I'll
try this one without signing.]
Folks, when is IPv6 support planned?
No time frame. Nobody is working on it at this time, feel free to
submit patches.
--Bill
Can I get a couple people to try out the following diff? It (I think)
fixes the 'prefer older sa' option that actually prefers newer SA's
issue (the one where we tell you to click that option to prefer it :))
Before I commit this, I'd like some feedback from people that have
done this to fix
On 3/30/06, Craig Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi David,
You are fortunate that your ISP supports aggregate connections. Here in
Australia, all ISP's don't want to know about it. There attitudes are, if
you want to go faster, then get a faster connection and pay up to 10 times
the price.
On 3/21/06, Josh Stompro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this would be a great idea, I am also in this boat where I would
like to shape on more than one interface. I realize it can be done
manually, but it would be nice if the wizard took care of it.
Is there any more documentation on
On 3/15/06, Chun Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chipset ? I'm not sure tbh, its an abit board I purchased 4-5 years ago.
The source is on a HP Netserver LH3000 (2 x P3 866Mhz, 2.25Gb RAM) with dual
64 bit PCI bus. 3 x Intel Pro MT1000 gig nics (64bit). The disk subsystem
is 2 x megaraid
On 3/14/06, Jim Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chun Wong wrote:
Hi,
I have two fw platforms, mono 1.21 running on a Nokia120 and pfsense1.0beta2
running on an AMD athlon 900.
I can get 2.2MBs on the 120 platform, at 96% cpu usage. On the athlon,
32bit, 33Mhz pci, I can get 7MBs using
On 3/14/06, Chun Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the fw traffic graph, I see 30 megabits per second on the 120 (95% cpu)
and 75 megabits peak on the athlon platform (45% cpu).
This certainly suggests that CPU on the athlon is not your limiting factor.
to be honest I was expecting a lot more.
On 3/14/06, Rainer Duffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 14.03.2006 um 20:52 schrieb Greg Hennessy:
I'd love to get the chance to throw an Avalanche at a decent system
running
PF to see what it really can stand upto.
Quite a bit. I ran out of Avalanche/Reflector capacity at 750Mbit,
On 3/14/06, Greg Hennessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quite a bit. I ran out of Avalanche/Reflector capacity at
750Mbit, but the OpenBSD box I pointed the firehose at, was
only hitting about 30% CPU load at the time.
Interesting, what nics were in the box ?
HP DL380G3 w/ Broadcom and
Now with better traffic shaping. Many thanks go to our new dev.
Leon on the find (and fix).
--Bill
On 3/11/06, Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fresh out of the oven:
http://www.pfsense.com/~sullrich/RELENG_1_SNAPSHOT_03-10-2006/
On 3/11/06, Randy B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've
On 3/5/06, Lawrence Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about having the ip's pop up if you hover over the
interface name?
Where? Care to do a mockup of what you are envisioning? Thanks
--Bill
So let me get this straight.
The cable that's plugged into the LAN nic if unplugged from LAN and
plugged into each of the OPT nics works? Sounds like a switch or
cable issue. Have you tried the reverse? Plug the cables that are in
the non-working OPT interfaces into the known working interface
, and they search the mailing lists, they'll find
the answer.
Thanks again!
Anthony
-- Original message --
From: Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So let me get this straight.
The cable that's plugged into the LAN nic if unplugged from LAN and
plugged into each
On 2/28/06, Adam Gibson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to be sure we are on the same page. I am referring to static port
mappings. Not static IP NAT mappings. I am pretty sure most
firewalling filters can do static IP mappings through NAT (1 to 1, etc).
Basically just making sure that the
On 2/27/06, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave C. Arthur wrote:
The system boots and runs. However when I try to install the system to
the virtual HD, I receive a response that no HDD can be found (using the
LSI controller).
Any ideas on how to get the controller recognized?
On 2/20/06, Kim C. Callis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what differnces and benefits will one get from the
OpenBSD deployment?
This is just a test image to see if pfsense is screwing up altq in any
way or if it's an OS issue as I suspect. There will be many
differences and many things not
On 2/20/06, Nick Buraglio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is somewhat related...
I just ran the shaping wizard (which I had not done in quite some
time) has it changed much? It seemed to be a little different to me.
Not visibly - but the rules it generates has changed over time.
Didn't there
On 2/19/06, Kim C. Callis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently running 1.0-BETA1-TESTING-SNAPSHOT-2-2-06.
Several days ago, I found my bandwidth greatly reduced. On
my E-1, I would getting about between 41-140K coming down
and at best 20K going up. As soon as I removed the shapper,
On 2/20/06, Kim C. Callis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started the traffic shapping on
1.0-BETA1-TESTING-SNAPSHOT-2-2-06. I had it running for
awhile and then I stopped. About two weeks ago, I restarted
the shaper. It seemed to be working well, and I had
forgotten about it. Then I started
On 1/27/06, Adam Gibson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the direction. I found the static-port setting. Someone has
probably already noticed the bug but the NAT listing does not display
properly for the rule I just created(the fields are in the wrong spot in
the table but editing the
Looks like something someone interested in writing a package should
do. The GPL'd nature means that it's unlikely to ever make it into
pfSense core (we're only adding BSD license-compatible software - BSD,
MIT, etc) without a complete rewrite or a license change.
--Bill
On 1/16/06, Jure Pečar
Someone hasn't done their research. This has been answered in the ML,
the forum, the FAQ, AND the blog.
--Bill
On 1/6/06, Claudio Castro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Ullrich escribió:
Do you have a question?
Of course, cant you read?
So, that means that if I have my NATed services in
You see a trend here?
--Bill
On 12/30/05, Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add a rule to allow traffic to port 80 on the WAN.
On 12/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I can ping the interface, I am just not getting the web
interface to come up
K.
On Fri,
On 12/25/05, naveen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All
iam new to PFsense. i have two querires regarding PFsense.
1) Does Pfsense support any IP/any DNS ( which is usefull in hotspots,
wireless users no need to change their IP address in Laptops)
No, but most laptops use DHCP anyway, so this
On 11/28/05, Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
system a bit better. the web server is thttpd, but i see lighttpd also
in the cvs tree so they might be migrating to it.
Actually it's mini_httpd (although we do have thttpd in the tree - not
sure why). And yes, we're moving to lighttpd for FastCGI
On 11/28/05, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This part of the architecture has changed slightly from m0n0wall I
believe, so if I go astray here, somebody kick me back into shape. ;)
*kick*
Basically, you can't get to PHP without first being authenticated. At
this point, if you're
On 11/28/05, Sanjay Arora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I would like to make one request to the project design...users
be given easily configured modular way to remove (i.e. not compile in)
services they do not want on the pfsense box, i.e. the ones that are not
basic to the basic
On 11/27/05, Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been looking for an open source firewall. I found m0n0wall, IPCop,
and few others. I thought m0n0wall was great, but then I came across
pfSense, and it was even better, picking up where m0n0wall left off.
I think you just summarized the fork
This couldn't have been a more timely question. Here's a post from
the author of pf that explains all you'd ever want to know about
shaping.
--Bill
From: Daniel Hartmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This question pops up frequently, if this reply is too wordy, that's
just so I can reference it in the
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
