Re: [pfSense] rules were ignored.

Hi Ernst, Many radios, 12ish or so, but there are no vlans defined on the appliance, its all physical interfaces. I'm going to chalk it up to some sort of human error, i don't want to believe what appeared to happened, happened.Will be setting up services to watch for a similar situation

Re: [pfSense] rules were ignored.

More than 1 wifi radio? Are you sure they are connected to the same pfSense interface? I've seen something like this before that was caused by a single mis-configured radio (wrong vlan). Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 21, 2017, at 6:02 PM, greg whynott wrote: > >> On

Re: [pfSense] rules were ignored.

> -- > > Steve Yates > ITS, Inc. > > -Original Message- > From: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On Behalf Of PiBa > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 12:47 PM > To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List <list@lists.pfsense.org>; > greg whynott &

Re: [pfSense] rules were ignored.

Hi PiBa, - The rules are applied inbound from wifi zone on the pfs interface. - inside is defined by an alias which describes all our internal RFC1918 networks. Without the use of an exclusion operator. - transparent http proxy is configured for the wifi network. As mentioned, while it was

Re: [pfSense] rules were ignored.

First time for me as well. I want to believe it was induced by human, but there is no evidence of on the surface. Perhaps there is something in the logs which would indicate what happened, but I'm not sure for how long those rules went dark. I'm deploying an instance of zabbix in the wifi

[pfSense] rules were ignored.

I'm not seeking help but rather thought I'd share an experience we had last week which has caused quite a hit on the confidence levels of pfSense. I tried to find where it may of been human error but seen no evidence of such. Happy to upload logs to any member of the team should they care to