for that.
> > Any ideas?
> >
>
> Works for me. pfSense 2.4.3.
It does indeed. I tried to leave it empty and got an error message.
No clue what I did. Works as expected. Sorry for the noise and
thanks for the quick response.
Marco
__
that?
foobar.com → 10.0.10.10
I can't leave the host part empty. Pfsense doesn't allow for that.
Any ideas?
Marco
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
, but now it works for some magical
reason.
Thanks to all of you for the support and sorry for the noise (of
having nothing to do with pfSense).
Marco
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Go
d “Apply Filter” and it
shows “No logs to disply”. That means that the packet is not blocked
by an implicit or explicit firewall rule, right?
Marco
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 15:23:43 -0800
Chris L <c...@viptalk.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Marco <li...@homerow.info> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:46:41 +
> > "Joseph L. Casale" <jcas...@activenetwerx.com> wrote:
&g
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:12:53 -0500
James Ronald <jron...@drewtech.com> wrote:
> What is the default gateway of the destination (is there a route back
> to pfSense)?
pfSense is the default gateway of the destination.
Marco
___
pfSense
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 11:59:09 -0600
Steven Spencer <steven.spen...@kdsi.com> wrote:
> On 02/12/2018 11:43 AM, Marco wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:21:08 -0600
> > Steven Spencer <steven.spen...@kdsi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/11/2018 03:29 PM, Marco w
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:21:08 -0600
Steven Spencer <steven.spen...@kdsi.com> wrote:
> On 02/11/2018 03:29 PM, Marco wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 20:46:41 +
> > "Joseph L. Casale" <jcas...@activenetwerx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> -Ori
he destination, if it's
> actually receiving traffic and/or sending it elsewhere (routing rule)
> this will provide some insight.
I ran a wireshark on the destination and it received packets when
“port testing” from the pfSense, but not when using external access
(e.g. canyouseeme.org)
Marco
__
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:42:34 -0800
Chris L <c...@viptalk.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 2018, at 11:12 AM, Marco <li...@homerow.info> wrote:
> >
> > 6) Packet capture:
> >
> >https://i.imgur.com/xT3qFXW.png
>
> What interface is
UPnP is not used
I guess I'm missing the obvious here, since port forwards are rather
straightforward in pfSense and have never given me troubles in the past. A
nudge in the right direction is appreciated.
Marco
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
s, you'll see correct data was sent by the DHCP
> server.
Thanks for the thorough answer. It seems it's not pfSense that is at
fault, but the client itself. I'll fire up wireshark and check
what's being transmitted to confirm.
Marco
___
pfSense maili
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 07:58:38 +0100
Marco <li...@homerow.info> wrote:
> Thanks for the thorough answer. It seems it's not pfSense that is at
> fault, but the client itself. I'll fire up wireshark and check
> what's being transmitted to confirm.
Indeed, the correct domain is passe
there. It seems redundant, but I've also
set the domain name in the DHCP server setting. However, on a
connected host the full qualified domain name is still set to the
ISP provided domain name. Running “hostname” on the pfSense box
returns the correct one, though.
Marco
__
the domain name in System → General Setup and also in the
DHCP server setting, which seems redundant. However, on a connected
host the full qualified domain name is still set to the ISP provided
domain name. Running “hostname” on the pfSense box returns the
correct one,
. But
it's empty. Therefore I assume it's using some default values.
How can I remove the “domain-name” from the DHCP request list
without altering anything else? Or if this is the wrong approach,
how to ignore the domain being pushed on the network by the ISP?
Marco
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 04:37:34 +
Espen Johansen <pfse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bsed on your need I think you should convert to l2tp.
>
> https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/L2TP/IPsec
Thanks. I'll have a look at it. Maybe it's a better fit
like a bit like overkill to just
get the DNS working. But I'll read up what it takes to implement
RADIUS. Thanks for the response.
Marco
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
ferent IP
address, depending on whether they are connected to the LAN or connected via
OpenVPN.
How to access the mobile hosts via the same hostname regardless if
they are connected to the LAN or VPN?
Marco
¹ http://serverfault.com/a/361103/102215
___
p
) -
Let me know if I should provide more information.
Best regards
Marco
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
On 2013–05–13 Matthias May wrote:
What do I need to configure that the hosts in the LAN can
communicate with each other?
Did you perhaps disable the checkbox Allow intra-BSS communication ?
Thanks, that was the nudge in the right direction I was hoping for.
It's working now.
Regards
Marco
the hosts in the WAN including the pfSense
box.
What do I need to configure that the hosts in the LAN can
communicate with each other?
Regards
Marco
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
have no firewalls rules, except one per interface, which permits
all traffic. I can provide more information if necessary, just let
me know.
How can I make the pfsense box visible from the LAN side? Am I doing
something wrong or is this expected?
Regards
Marco
On 2013–05–08 Chris Bagnall wrote:
On 8/5/13 7:41 pm, Marco wrote:
no IP configured
This would be your problem.
This was the problem, indeed. I set the LAN to DHCP and I can see
the pfSense box and access the web configurator.
How can I make the pfsense box visible from the LAN side? Am I
. That has been the biggest problem in
the past. During the peak hours video calls are not possible. Maybe
the traffic shaper could be of help. On the other hand I read that
skype is very hard to shape.
Thank you too for the response.
Regards
Marco
25 matches
Mail list logo