of switch(es) is(are) involved here? There
are some specific configurations that can cause issues, others on the
list may be able to make suggestions.
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discussion
need to save money, Netgear seems to be OK. But I'd still rather
have a ProCurve.
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 15:11
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense-discussion
; unfortunately, I *think* it consisted of download (backup)
config.xml, edit it programmatically, then upload (restore) it. I also
think there are enhancement requests still open for 2.0 to make this
easier, but of course I can't find them right now...
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
to you.
Smaller, regional ISPs often refuse to provide BGP peering for
non-technical reasons. (And good luck finding a Cable operator anywhere
who's willing to even *think* about the possibility of a multi-homed
customer...)
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
-Original Message-
From
mapping each virtual switch (or vlan) to a physical NIC on the host.
Basically, keep the networking as simple as possible, don't get fancy like
I did.
-Adam Thompson
athom...@athompso.net
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:eu...@leitl.org]
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 05:20
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] pfSense router/firewall in a
Vmware ESXi guest for other guests
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Adam Thompson athom...@c3a.ca
wrote:
It works, but performance is, in my experience, poor. Don't use
trunking
(802.3ad / LACP) and VLANs together, or inter-vlan
