Re: [pfSense] problems with setting 10.0.0.1/8 on LAN

2011-11-29 Thread Nathan Eisenberg
> Not on the firewall. The other hosts do have the second NICs on the > 10.0.0.0/24 network. As far as I know mixing different netmasks on > NICs on the same switch shouldn't result in complete unreachability. > > I think I'll do some experimenting by isolating hosts on a > different, unreachable

Re: [pfSense] problems with setting 10.0.0.1/8 on LAN

2011-11-29 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 09:12:21AM -0500, Ugo Bellavance wrote: >> Behavior is the same with /16, ping gets me "Destination Host Unreachable", >> while the pfSense itself has no isssue reaching anything outside. >> >> As soon as I reset the LAN back to 10.0.0.1/24 everything >> from the outside in

Re: [pfSense] problems with setting 10.0.0.1/8 on LAN

2011-11-29 Thread Ugo Bellavance
On 2011-11-27 10:14, Eugen Leitl wrote: On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 04:07:31PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: While trying to build VIPs and do 1:1 NAT I accidentally noticed that setting LAN to 10.0.0.1/8 (instead of 10.0.0.1/24) will make the system unresponsive (this is 2.1-DEVELOPMENT (i386) built o

Re: [pfSense] problems with setting 10.0.0.1/8 on LAN

2011-11-27 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 04:07:31PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > While trying to build VIPs and do 1:1 NAT I accidentally noticed > that setting LAN to 10.0.0.1/8 (instead of 10.0.0.1/24) > will make the system unresponsive (this is 2.1-DEVELOPMENT (i386) > built on Fri Oct 21 12:51:56 EDT 2011).

[pfSense] problems with setting 10.0.0.1/8 on LAN

2011-11-27 Thread Eugen Leitl
While trying to build VIPs and do 1:1 NAT I accidentally noticed that setting LAN to 10.0.0.1/8 (instead of 10.0.0.1/24) will make the system unresponsive (this is 2.1-DEVELOPMENT (i386) built on Fri Oct 21 12:51:56 EDT 2011). I also have other hosts on the 10.0.0.0/24 network -- not sure what mix