Hi,
We are trying to establish an ipsec between a pfsense 2.0 and a cisco
firewall, but we are not able to get trough the 'self' tests on pfsense and
on the cisco side it doesn't seem like anyone tries to connect.
This is the only entries in the ipsec syslog:
Nov 29 08:59:25racoon: INFO:
On 2011-11-25 08:55, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to use pfSense for a proof-of-concept to link two networks
together for a SIP trunk. After discussing with the other network admin,
we concluded that we'd use NAT because we don't want the traffic to go
through core switches, which are the
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
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 instantly
-Original Message-
From: list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org]
On Behalf Of Mehma Sarja
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:39 AM
To: list@lists.pfsense.org
Subject: Re: [pfSense] Odd circumstances
On 11/29/11 5:49 AM, Ryan Rodrigue wrote:
What is the IP
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Ryan Rodrigue radiote...@aaremail.com wrote:
You are correct that these are on different subnets. Your method of double
nattng should work, but isn't the bast way to do things. Double natting
usually causes problems.
It's ugly and best avoidable if
Me too
But I´ve got outbound NAT for both networks to reach internet
1xx.2xx.2xx.91/29 - CARP: 1xx.2xx.2xx.90
10.2xx.2xx.11/24 --- CARP: 1xx.2xx.2xx.90
Regards
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Fuchs, Martin
martin.fu...@trendchiller.com wrote:
Hi !
** **
We used in our setup
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Ugo Bellavance u...@lubik.ca wrote:
I attached a diagram of what I would like to achieve.
You can achieve that without NAT. Simply set up pfsense with two
interfaces, addressed 172.30.100.254/24 and 192.168.99.4/24
respectively. Now, depending on whether you
Thanks guys. I was able to fetch it from another repo.
Is there a file i can update so I don't have to pass off the new host and
path each time I use pkg_add? (similar to the function sources.list has on
deb systems).
thanks,
greg
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jim Pingle
On 2011-11-29 11:53, David Burgess wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Ugo Bellavanceu...@lubik.ca wrote:
I attached a diagram of what I would like to achieve.
You can achieve that without NAT. Simply set up pfsense with two
interfaces, addressed 172.30.100.254/24 and 192.168.99.4/24
On 11/29/2011 11:27 AM, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
On 2011-11-29 10:59, David Burgess wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Ugo Bellavanceu...@lubik.ca wrote:
Did I fail to provide enough info?
I don't understand the question; you make some statements that don't
appear logical to me, for
On 11/29/2011 12:18 PM, David Burgess wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Ugo Bellavanceu...@lubik.ca wrote:
I know, but we didn't want to do any routing because subnets may change and
overlap in the future, since this is two distinct organizations.
I don't see how NAT fixes that.
naturally. 8) thanks again Jim.
take care,
greg
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jim Pingle li...@pingle.org wrote:
On 11/29/2011 11:56 AM, greg whynott wrote:
Is there a file i can update so I don't have to pass off the new host
and path each time I use pkg_add? (similar to the
13 matches
Mail list logo
