On 12/10/2012 1:13 PM, Ryan Rodrigue wrote:
>> What firmware version is on both of those?
>
> On both boxes:
> 2.0.1-RELEASE (i386)
> built on Mon Dec 12 18:24:17 EST 2011
> FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p6
>
>
>
> That is part of my confusion. Both were upgraded from 1.2 a while back. I
> think 1 ma
> What firmware version is on both of those?
On both boxes:
2.0.1-RELEASE (i386)
built on Mon Dec 12 18:24:17 EST 2011
FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE-p6
That is part of my confusion. Both were upgraded from 1.2 a while back. I
think 1 may have had the 1.2 package for the traffic graphs, but it was too
On 12/10/2012 11:55 AM, Ryan Rodrigue wrote:
> I have 2 boxes on the same network. Both are configured almost the
> same. One of them shows IP addresses when I go to Status > Traffic
> Graphs. One does not.The one that does not work even looks
> different. The one that does not works also s
I have 2 boxes on the same network. Both are configured almost the same.
One of them shows IP addresses when I go to Status > Traffic Graphs. One
does not.The one that does not work even looks different. The one that
does not works also says array. I am not sure what that means. I tried
ba
On 12/10/2012 11:31 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
> ok, well, then only connect with cisco vpn update to pfsense 2.1?
It has nothing to do with Cisco - it's the NAT+IPsec feature you need.
On 2.0.x (and even 1.2.x) it connects fine to Cisco in setups that do
not require NAT+IPsec.
Since you
> On 12/10/2012 10:52 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
>> Thanks, thanks. And the las question, I could do something as a nat or
>> something for me to work on pfsense 2.0.1? And so not having to install
>> or
>> upgrade pfsense because I have it in production..
>
> No. The feature exists only o
On 12/10/2012 10:52 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
> Thanks, thanks. And the las question, I could do something as a nat or
> something for me to work on pfsense 2.0.1? And so not having to install or
> upgrade pfsense because I have it in production..
No. The feature exists only on 2.1, and i
On 12/10/2012 09:32 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
The remote phones in question are not using NAT, but are publicly
>addressed. Local phones on our LAN continue to work just fine. The firewall
>is at the local end and sits between the cloud and the switchvox server.
>When you say, "going back to a static
> On 12/10/2012 10:33 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
>>
>>>
On 12/10/2012 10:04 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
> Can I nat origin in pfsense?
You can on pfSense 2.1 (BETA).
Given the other things you have said, you do need NAT+IPsec, which is
in
2.1 a
On 12/10/2012 10:33 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
>
>>
>>> On 12/10/2012 10:04 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
Can I nat origin in pfsense?
>>>
>>> You can on pfSense 2.1 (BETA).
>>>
>>> Given the other things you have said, you do need NAT+IPsec, which is in
>>> 2.1 and does work the
>
>> On 12/10/2012 10:04 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
>>> Can I nat origin in pfsense?
>>
>> You can on pfSense 2.1 (BETA).
>>
>> Given the other things you have said, you do need NAT+IPsec, which is in
>> 2.1 and does work there. There is an extra field to provide the NAT
>> network details
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Steve Spencer wrote:
> The remote phones in question are not using NAT, but are publicly
> addressed. Local phones on our LAN continue to work just fine. The firewall
> is at the local end and sits between the cloud and the switchvox server.
> When you say, "goin
> On 12/10/2012 10:04 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
>> Can I nat origin in pfsense?
>
> You can on pfSense 2.1 (BETA).
>
> Given the other things you have said, you do need NAT+IPsec, which is in
> 2.1 and does work there. There is an extra field to provide the NAT
> network details for Phase
On 12/10/2012 10:04 AM, may...@maykel.sytes.net wrote:
> Can I nat origin in pfsense?
You can on pfSense 2.1 (BETA).
Given the other things you have said, you do need NAT+IPsec, which is in
2.1 and does work there. There is an extra field to provide the NAT
network details for Phase 2, so you'd e
On 12/09/2012 03:07 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
ll,
>
>I've been attempting to our old 1.2.2 firewall to new hardware and version
>2.0 Release. Everything works with one big exception of the remote phones on
>our Digium Switchvox server. I've attempted this move 3 times, and each time
>I pull the n
> On 8/1/2012 6:00 AM, Maykel Franco Hernández wrote:
>> I try configure the ipsec for remote connection. I need write in the
>> local network in phase 2 a local network different to LAN. But, I
>> configured the local network in phase 2 a ip different to LAN and not
>> appear the button connect
On 8/1/2012 6:00 AM, Maykel Franco Hernández wrote:
> I try configure the ipsec for remote connection. I need write in the
> local network in phase 2 a local network different to LAN. But, I
> configured the local network in phase 2 a ip different to LAN and not
> appear the button connect in statu
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Maykel Franco Hernández
> wrote:
>> I try configure the ipsec for remote connection. I need write in the
>> local
>> network in phase 2 a local network different to LAN. But, I configured
>> the
>> local network in phase 2 a ip different to LAN and not appear the
18 matches
Mail list logo
