Jumping in midway through, 193.168.1.0/24 belongs to Universite du Luxembourg.
If that's not you then the other end could be routing packets there.
--
Steve Yates
ITS, Inc.
-Original Message-
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Lyle wrote:
>
>> The other end has
I agree. I typically ssh in as root and tcpdump to get a more interactive view
of the network, but packet capture should give you the same data. You should
be seeing traffic even if it is rejected or dropped by your firewall rules. If
you’re not seeing ping, it’s not showing up at your
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:42 AM, WebDawg wrote:
> I posted this a while ago:
>
>
> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Jan/77
>
> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Mar/25
I see, but that has nothing to do with the security of the VLAN
implementation, rather of the
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Volker Kuhlmann
> I disagree. While it'll work, its security is nowhere near the same. It
> depends on the VLAN switch's firmware being bugfree (we all know about
> how likely that is), it adds complexity, and it mixes physically
> separate networks together on one
Is it possible to do from the web interface?
thanks
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
Hi Lyle,
Which IP they are pinging exactly?
Rosen
Lyle wrote on 5/25/2016 6:54 PM:
I am trying to install a new pfSense appliance running 2.3 Release.
works fine until I setup a IPSec tunnel.
The other end has a conflict with our LAN addressing(192.168.1.0/24).
So in phase 2, we setup a
On 5/26/2016 2:09 PM, Rosen Iliev wrote:
> The other end has a conflict with our LAN addressing(192.168.1.0/24).
> So in phase 2, we setup a Tunnel IPv4 using 193.168.1.0/24 for the
> local Network. NAT/BINAT network of 192.168.85.0/24. Their remote
> network is 192.168.75.0/24.
It's
On 5/26/2016 2:09 PM, Rosen Iliev wrote:
> The other end has a conflict with our LAN addressing(192.168.1.0/24).
> So in phase 2, we setup a Tunnel IPv4 using 193.168.1.0/24 for the
> local Network. NAT/BINAT network of 192.168.85.0/24. Their remote
> network is 192.168.75.0/24.
It's probably
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Lyle wrote:
> The other end has a conflict with our LAN addressing(192.168.1.0/24). So
> in phase 2, we setup a Tunnel IPv4 using 193.168.1.0/24
>
> for the local Network. NAT/BINAT network of 192.168.85.0/24. Their
> remote network is
By the way, this is on a pfSense/Netgate device and I still have at least 2
support incidents available. I'd happily burn at least one of them to have
someone remotely check this.
I'll be back on site within 2 hours from this post, I'll check the web by then
for the proper procedure to open a
LAN Interface (lan, igb0)
Status up
MAC Address 00:08:a2:09:58:96
IPv4 Address10.32.0.1
Subnet mask IPv4255.255.0.0
IPv6 Link Local fe80::1:1%igb0 (???)
IPv6 Address2a02:578:4d07::1
Subnet mask IPv664
MTU
11 matches
Mail list logo