That's an interesting idea. Would there be anything keeping me from using a
my pfSense box as-is for native IPv4 connectivity while using a second box
running OpenBSD or dare I say, Linux as my IPv6 gateway connected to HE via
a 6in4 tunnel? Would I still be able to use pfSense's DHCPv6 server to
c
I'm very glad this email thread has occurred... I was hoping to deploy two
pfSense boxes as IPv6 routers.
Now I'm wondering if I should just put in OpenBSD at least for now?
-Adam
Adam Hunt wrote:
>Thanks for the explanation Chris. I did run across a bug report that seems to
>be exactly what w
Thanks for the explanation Chris. I did run across a bug report that seems
to be exactly what we're running into (
http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2129).
Are the issues with v6 fragmentation inherent to FreeBSD 8.3 that pfSesne
2.1 is based on? Also, are there any workarounds for those of us run
Even weirder…
Although I can successfully ping at payload sizes up to 1432, I see another
more troubling problem: there’s a “hole” where it works with payloads up to
1232, fails with payloads between 1233 and 1255 inclusive, then works again
with payloads 1256 bytes and above. WTF
-Ad
My MTU size was 1280; since the patch applied to fix bug #2674, I can now
override this to match the 1480 MTU on the HE side… I think.
At least, on tunnelbroker.net, the MTU is set to 1480, and on my end, the MTU
is set to 1480.
Now I can pass ICMP with a payload of up to 1432 bytes. The root-
Have you tried the -m option with ping6? According to the FreeBSD man page
it will suppress fragmentation of the ICMP packets. This might help find
the MTU minimum for the path in question.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Adam Hunt wrote:
> What do you have your MTUs and MSS set at on each of
What do you have your MTUs and MSS set at on each of the interfaces? From
what I can tell the interfaces that might play a roll in this issue are the
WAN link, the tunnel link, and the MTU on the Tunnel Broker site.
I have to move some furniture for the next couple hours. After that I'll
try to si
On Aug 15, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Adam Hunt wrote:
> Thanks for confirming this. I'm glad that I'm not the only one and/or I'm not
> completely inept. I'll sit down later today and play with the various MTU
> settings (WAN, HEv6 tunnel, and the setting on the "advanced tab" of Tunnel
> Broker's s
Thanks for confirming this. I'm glad that I'm not the only one and/or I'm
not completely inept. I'll sit down later today and play with the various
MTU settings (WAN, HEv6 tunnel, and the setting on the "advanced tab" of
Tunnel Broker's site) and see what, if anything, I can get to work
consistentl
On 8/15/2013 5:27 AM, Andreas Huser wrote:
Hi,
I have a /25 Public Network and want use this for my pfsense 2.1RC.
But I not want put 128 Virtual IP in the PfSense Firewall. I try it with Virtual IP type
"other" and select "netzwork" /25.
Now i create an 1:1 nat rule with an ip adress from t
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Andreas Huser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a /25 Public Network and want use this for my pfsense 2.1RC.
> But I not want put 128 Virtual IP in the PfSense Firewall. I try it with
> Virtual IP type „other“ and select „netzwork“ /25.
>
> Now i create an 1:1 nat rule wit
I am at the moment playing with FailOver and later Load Balancing in
Multi-WAN situation.
I am looking at some HOWTOs on using Squid i(in transparent mode) in such
situations. For example these two:
1. http://goo.gl/kPPGB - It lead to a pdf download
2. http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,3888
Hi,
I have a /25 Public Network and want use this for my pfsense 2.1RC.
But I not want put 128 Virtual IP in the PfSense Firewall. I try it with
Virtual IP type „other“ and select „netzwork“ /25.
Now i create an 1:1 nat rule with an ip adress from this range and i open an
firewall rule. But
13 matches
Mail list logo
