Re: [pfSense-discussion] squid.inc gotchas

2011-06-05 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] article: Millions of Home Routers at Risk

2010-08-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] PHP uses 100% CPU on 1.2 and 1.2.1-RC2

2008-12-02 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] SLC or MLC flash for full install

2008-10-23 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] DNS resolver test

2008-07-22 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Captive Portal on pfsense

2008-07-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] ARP traffic causing routers to hang - single ARP cache with both LAN and WAN ARP entries?

2008-04-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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?

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Pfsense without NAT

2008-03-28 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] miniupnpd No buffer space available

2008-03-28 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?

2008-03-24 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?

2008-03-23 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic shaper bug ?

2008-03-23 Thread Bill Marquette
PS. It's probably worth noting that I'm also the author of the existing annoying wizard.

Re: [pfSense-discussion] how to change wan interface media from autoselect?

2008-03-18 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] pfSense / Time Service

2008-03-05 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] HOW MUCH TRUST ON PFSENSE ?

2007-12-24 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] HOW MUCH TRUST ON PFSENSE ?

2007-12-22 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Problems to use PPTP/GRE traffic to connect in a server - Please advice.

2007-11-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Problems to use PPTP/GRE traffic to connect in a server - Please advice.

2007-11-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] multiwan ftp proxy

2007-11-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] noob question

2007-09-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] did something change in 1.2rc1?

2007-08-31 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] did something change in 1.2rc1?

2007-08-31 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] did something change in 1.2rc1?

2007-08-31 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Start other processes inside pfSense?

2007-07-24 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] network layout

2007-06-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] network layout

2007-06-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] SunFire X2100 M2 gmirror

2007-06-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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

[pfSense-discussion] Usermanager code commited to releng_1

2007-04-12 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Allowing multiple IPs for the same hostname in the WebGUI

2007-04-05 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Allowing multiple IPs for the same hostname in the WebGUI

2007-04-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Cisco EtherChannel support in pfSense?

2007-03-09 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Developer bootstrap errors

2007-02-28 Thread Bill Marquette
On 2/28/07, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Marquette wrote: Comment out the call to update_cvs_depot? Or update that routine to better handle a development model that has no CVS access? Modifying the function to handle SKIP_CHECKOUT (which is documented in in the wiki) is trivial

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Developer bootstrap errors

2007-02-27 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Can pfSense be ported to Intel IXP425?

2007-02-02 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Allways someone different

2006-12-24 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Any active quagga development?

2006-11-30 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] OpenVPN running on pfsense 1.0.1

2006-11-30 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] layer2 filtering/shaping possibility?

2006-11-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] PPPoE and multiple IP addresses

2006-10-30 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] pfSense Version 1.0.1 available - Upgrade recommended

2006-10-30 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] ssl load balancing

2006-10-26 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] 2 vpn client connections from the same ip does not work

2006-10-19 Thread Bill Marquette
, 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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] pf rules for load balancing

2006-10-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] 2 vpn client connections from the same ip does not work

2006-10-18 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] 2 vpn client connections from the same ip does not work

2006-10-18 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] IDS yet?

2006-10-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] IDS yet?

2006-10-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] IDS yet?

2006-10-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] IDS yet?

2006-10-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] FTP Helper on WAN - bug?

2006-10-03 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] FTP Helper on WAN - bug?

2006-10-03 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Tutorial - configuring the captive portal with the integrated user manager

2006-09-28 Thread Bill Marquette
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.

Re: [pfSense-discussion] IDS yet? (+IPS)

2006-09-21 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] pfSense and TTL (time to live) = 1

2006-09-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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}

Re: [pfSense-discussion] source-hash and sticky-address in pf pools

2006-08-17 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] unable to view revison log for filter.inc on cvstrac

2006-08-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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/filter.inc always throws the following error. error message ---

Re: [pfSense-discussion] FreeBSD LSI Logic fixes for VMware

2006-08-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] unable to view revison log for filter.inc on cvstrac

2006-08-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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

[pfSense-discussion] routed package

2006-07-08 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] load balancing - fail over

2006-06-28 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] load balancing - fail over

2006-06-27 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] PFSense and Tables

2006-06-26 Thread Bill Marquette
On 6/26/06, Nick Buraglio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've been thinking about adding pftabled to pfsense but have not had the time to really do it yet since I'm slow at writing the gui parts. It's certainly possible to use pftabled to remotely

Re: [pfSense-discussion] PFSense and Tables

2006-06-26 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork

2006-06-21 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] artwork

2006-06-21 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Known PFsense Limits?

2006-06-06 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: Re[2]: [pfSense-discussion] P2P Blocker

2006-06-06 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Routing

2006-05-24 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] broken http interface install..

2006-05-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] CF-IDE install help

2006-05-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] CF-IDE install help

2006-05-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] No altq support on linitx.com appliances? Also, plug for packaging on embedded version.

2006-05-08 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Vmware Tools and pfSense

2006-04-24 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] web interface and dependancies...

2006-04-18 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] when IPv6 support?

2006-04-11 Thread Bill Marquette
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

[pfSense-discussion] IPSEC diff to test

2006-04-04 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Outbound load-balancing

2006-03-30 Thread Bill Marquette
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.

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Traffic Shaper wizard thoughts

2006-03-26 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-15 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Bill Marquette
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.

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Bill Marquette
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,

Re: [pfSense-discussion] throughput - cpu, bus

2006-03-14 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Everything else sucks

2006-03-11 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Small suggestion

2006-03-05 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] PANIC! problems with OPTx interfaces

2006-03-03 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] PANIC! problems with OPTx interfaces

2006-03-03 Thread Bill Marquette
, 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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] licience of php interface ?

2006-02-28 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] pfsense on VMware ESX Server

2006-02-27 Thread Bill Marquette
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?

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Routing

2006-02-20 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Routing

2006-02-20 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Routing

2006-02-19 Thread Bill Marquette
On 2/19/06, Kim C. Callis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick, You are right... Before I started fooling around, I removed traffic shaping and suddenly my download was good to go. I think I still need to do something useful with the Cisco, but I think I need to really do some homework on the

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Routing

2006-02-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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,

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Routing

2006-02-19 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Set an OPT2 interface UDP rule with static-port option

2006-01-27 Thread Bill Marquette
On 1/27/06, Adam Gibson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I need quake4 UDP master server updates to try and keep the real source port when going through NAT. The master servers use the src port that they receive when listing your server. I noticed that pf does support that capability through the

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Set an OPT2 interface UDP rule with static-port option

2006-01-27 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Set an OPT2 interface UDP rule with static-port option

2006-01-27 Thread Bill Marquette
On 1/27/06, Adam Gibson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Marquette wrote: 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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] feature request: vmps

2006-01-16 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] access NATed services by the public IP address from LAN review

2006-01-06 Thread Bill Marquette
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

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Help!!! :)

2005-12-30 Thread Bill Marquette
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,

  1   2   >