Hi guys !
I have worked in the Samba4 package for pfsense, not only act as a
domain member, but also act as a domain controller and i see this as an
opportunity to extend the pfsense to be more than a firewall and act as
a new service on the network in a new installation in another hardware
to
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Luiz Gustavo Costa
luizgust...@luizgustavo.pro.br wrote:
I have worked in the Samba4 package for pfsense, not only act as a
domain member, but also act as a domain controller and i see this as an
opportunity to extend the pfsense to be more than a firewall and
Keep up the good work. There's nothing wrong with this as long as you
understand the potential security risks involved.
Espen F. Johansen
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On 26. februar 2013 13:49:30 Luiz Gustavo Costa
luizgust...@luizgustavo.pro.br wrote:
Hi guys
I think it would make more sense to run Samba and similar services on a
separate VM. I realize that many embedded systems don't support
virtualization but there are reasonable options now like Intel Atom S1200
family.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Vick Khera vi...@khera.org wrote:
On Tue,
Op 26-2-2013 13:49, Luiz Gustavo Costa
schreef:
Hi guys !
I have worked in the Samba4 package for pfsense, not only act as a
domain member, but also act as a domain controller and i see this as an
opportunity to extend the pfsense to be more than a firewall and
On 2/26/2013 10:26 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Luiz Gustavo Costa
luizgust...@luizgustavo.pro.br mailto:luizgust...@luizgustavo.pro.br
wrote:
I have worked in the Samba4 package for pfsense, not only act as a
domain member, but also act as a domain
* Jim Pingle (li...@pingle.org) wrote:
On 2/26/2013 10:26 AM, Vick Khera wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Luiz Gustavo Costa
luizgust...@luizgustavo.pro.br mailto:luizgust...@luizgustavo.pro.br
wrote:
I have worked in the Samba4 package for pfsense, not only act as a
Sorry but I can`t see any good point for this.
PFsense is a well known distribution due to the stability of it`s
core-components and as a Firewall/Router appliance, not an all in one
distribution.
There are dozens of linux-based file-server distributions around, even at a
small-office you
Hi,
We're running 2.1BETA1 on a two-nodes failover pfSense cluster. Each
node is in a separate physical location, and connected to a different
switch.
We've got around 15 interfaces, 8 of which have an active DHCP server
served by pfSense
We encounter synchronization problems between the two
We are talking about a package, right? Something people can choose to
install or... you know... not?
I like the idea of being able to turn on windows domain services on my
router. For sites with smaller installations, or where all-in-one makes
more sense than having a VM server, I don't see where
On 2/26/2013 3:23 PM, Jerome Alet wrote:
On the master node, for each interface onto which we've enabled the DHCP
server, we've added in the Failover peer IP input box the address
the slave node has on the very same interface.
Is this really needed for each interface, or is it sufficient to
On 2/26/2013 3:56 PM, Jerome Alet wrote:
What I find very strange is that even when removing the failover IP
address for one of the interfaces, the synchronization still takes
place, that's why I wondered if defining it on each interface was really
needed.
That field doesn't control
Hello-
We upgraded our phone system from an analog system to a Digium Switchvox D65
PBX. I would like to replace our home brewed Linux router with pfsense 2.0.2
but am having trouble making a good phone connection. While the home-brewed
router has worked well in the past, traffic-shaping is
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Doug Sampson do...@dawnsign.com wrote:
Hello-
** **
We upgraded our phone system from an analog system to a Digium Switchvox
D65 PBX. I would like to replace our home brewed Linux router with pfsense
2.0.2 but am having trouble making a good phone
We currently are using a Switchvox 65 SMB connecting to an ATT IP Flex SIP
connection through pfsense 1.2.3 at two locations. Not sure how much has
changed in 2.0.2, but it does work for us. We have two separate subnets
internally, one for LAN and one for VoIP. Each has it's own physical
In our case(similar scenario) manual outbound
Wan to any static port yes worked
For forwarding
VoIPPorts 5060:5061, 1:3, 3478, 7070:7079, 4569 Voipports
Also do a server's allowed ips for incoming for extra security
That worked fine for us but when we changed to alix
16 matches
Mail list logo
