Re: [pfSense] Lightning strike

>From the picture, those are definitely surface-mount. I don't think I'd recommend trying it yourself unless you have experience and comfort working with SMD components. That said, if you do have the experience, it looks like the parts don't cost more than a few dollars. Moshe On Jul 25, 2016

[pfSense] 2.3.2-RELEASE Now Available!

We are happy to announce the release of pfSense® software version 2.3.2! This is a maintenance release in the 2.3.x series, bringing a number of bug fixes. You can find all the details on the blog. https://blog.pfsense.org/?p=2108 ___ pfSense mailing

Re: [pfSense] Lightning strike

"Lightning surge damage to Ethernet and POTS ports connected to inside wiring" http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=3D6842005 A summary of the paper: http://incompliancemag.com/article/lightning-surge-damage-to-ethernet-and-pots-ports-connected-to-inside-wiring/ a slide

Re: [pfSense] Lightning strike

Since you described that the board has isolation transformers, I would assume that they followed the spec and put in network jacks with magnetics instead of direct connections. As I understand

[pfSense] Lightning strike

The 6th Ethernet port (em5) on my Lanner fw-7541D died Saturday night during the electrical storm. Just the one port. Apparently fried, apparently by an electrical anomaly. Now, the link light is always on (dimly lit), whether populated or not, and neither the POST, nor the OS detects the

Re: [pfSense] CIFS slow on PPTP

The problem has less to do with CIFS, and more to do with applications and the laws of physics. The laws of physics dictate that large files opened from far away will not perform like those that are close, and applications must be designed to deal with those realities. This is one reason

Re: [pfSense] CIFS slow on PPTP

Karl Fife wrote: > Are you sure that CIFS is slow because of PPTP? All but the latest > CIFS/SMB protocols are poorly suited for high-latency connections such > as the public Internet (e.g. where you might use VPN). Even under the > best circumstances, many applications don't tolerate it well >

Re: [pfSense] CIFS slow on PPTP

Karl Fife wrote: > Are you sure that CIFS is slow because of PPTP? All but the latest CIFS/SMB protocols are poorly suited for high-latency connections such as the public Internet (e.g. where you might use VPN). Even under the best circumstances, many applications don't tolerate it well >

Re: [pfSense] CIFS slow on PPTP

Are you sure that CIFS is slow because of PPTP? All but the latest CIFS/SMB protocols are poorly suited for high-latency connections such as the public Internet (e.g. where you might use VPN). Even under the best circumstances, many applications don't tolerate it well

[pfSense] IPv6 being used for NTP even though IPv6 is not configured

According to the System/Advanced/Networking page, there is an option to prefer IPv4. However, it says this: "if IPv6 is configured and a hostname resolves IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, IPv6 will be used." I do not have IPv6 configured -- all my interfaces are statically configured. The only IPv6 I see

Re: [pfSense] IPv6 being used for NTP even though IPv6 is not configured

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are seeing an IPv6 link-local address on an interface then IPv6 is enabled, just not configured. PFSense gurus, does setting IPv6 to none in PFSense not disable IPv6 operation in the OS? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Vick Khera