On 10/12/11 2:23 am, Chris Buechler wrote:
Depends on your machine and cost of power. The 5 watts of an
ALIX/other embedded router vs. most PCs will save you roughly 80 watts
of power usage (some PCs will be quite a bit more, some less). That's
about 700 Kwh a year of power savings assuming 24/7
On 1/2/12 2:15 pm, Seth Mos wrote:
I am seeking a user(s) that has access to a 6RD IPv6 connection so we
can test our development 6RD code.
Out of curiosity (and this is more aimed at ISPs than end users), is
implementing the various IPv6 'workarounds' - for want of a better word
- actually
On 3/2/12 4:56 pm, - Dickie Bradford - wrote:
Does anyone know why sticky connections do not work on https ?
Is it possible that although the url is the same, the IP address behind
it fluctuates. As I understand things, the 'sticky connections' option
is by IP (i.e. layer 3) rather than by
On 16/2/12 9:32 pm, bsd wrote:
Use the zabbix package and configure some checks in your conf file seems the
most straightforward way to answer your request.
I must admit the existence of this had completely passed me by.
What extra 'stuff' does it allow to be monitored/graphed over and above
On 19/3/12 11:54 pm, Moshe Katz wrote:
I have ICMP blanket allowed on both pfSense installations that I have (home
and work).
+1. We have an ICMP Echo blanket allow rule on all our pfSense
deployments (several dozen).
As others have indicated, it's a useful troubleshooting tool, and also a
On 20/3/12 3:09 am, Adam Thompson wrote:
(And, really, you can afford the labour to implement HA Exchange and all this
complexity, but you can’t afford to upgrade to a single Comcast or Verizon
business-grade connection??? Either you work for peanuts, or maybe someone in
your office can’t do
On 20/3/12 6:30 pm, Nachtfalke wrote:
For security issues you should think about Tunneling IP traffic over ICMP. So
allowing ping top the world could be a risk but probably ping the GW/pfsense is not a big
problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICMP_tunnel
I've only skim-read it, but doesn't
Thanks for the list of stuff that works.
Out of curiosity - how are folks planning on doing multi-WAN load
balancing in the v6 world?
With NATed v4 it was simple: get public IP from each ISP, use that on
the WAN, then use RFC1918 addresses on the LAN, translating to each
ISP's public IP as
Are there any plans to incorporate something like NAT64 (or another
4-to-6 translation method) to allow v6-only networks?
Kind regards,
Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
On 23/4/12 1:40 pm, Jim Pingle wrote:
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi-WAN_for_IPv6
Already have that covered... (and it works for me at my house).
Excellent! Thanks for the link.
I shall give it a try over the weekend (it's the one thing that's been
holding me back from a fully v6'd
On 26/6/12 9:23 am, Pim van Stam wrote:
For higher demands than a Alix can deliver we use Jetway MB's with a
daughterboard option, like the NC9C-550-LF and AD3INLANG
Links:
http://www.jetway.com.tw/jw/ipcboard_view.asp?productid=781proname=NC9C-550-LF
On 26/6/12 8:46 pm, Paul Cockings wrote:
1. (broad question... beat me up if like..) Are microwave links
hackable and therefore I should consider some type of encryption on
that link
You should probably let the list have a bit more detail about the type
of links you're setting up -
On 26/6/12 10:09 pm, Jim Thompson wrote:
Why? I it's a satellite link. Likely Ku-band, but could be C-band, or even
something else.
Is it? You seem to have made an assumption that it's a satellite link.
There are plenty of point-to-point microwave links that don't go
anywhere near a
Greetings list,
In recent months I've done quite a few pfSense installs with 2.1. I've
tended to simply download the latest snapshot as and when I've needed to
image a new CF card (all our deployments are embedded).
However, in recent days - especially after seeing a post on here last
week
On 8/8/12 5:15 pm, Moshe Katz wrote:
We do this at my office. We have 1-to-1 NAT for our public IPs to our
Servers. On WAN, we set a rule for Allow ICMP from * to *. You may be
able to get by with a more-restrictive rule but this is the one we use.
We always allow ping responses from our
I've used PPTP without any difficulty connecting from Android devices to
pfSense in the past.
I'll leave others to discuss the relative security merits of each (but
yes, L2TP by itself will not encrypt).
Kind regards,
Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
On 26/9/12 12:35 pm, İhsan Doğan wrote:
As mentioned, I don't have any issues with built-in Via Rhine
interfaces. My problem is, that the Intel card on the PCI slot does not
work.
You need to ascertain whether it's the card or the slot that's the
problem. Try the card in a different machine
On 26/9/12 12:35 pm, İhsan Doğan wrote:
As mentioned, I don't have any issues with built-in Via Rhine
interfaces. My problem is, that the Intel card on the PCI slot does not
work.
You need to ascertain whether it's the card or the slot that's the
problem. Try the card in a different machine
On 31/10/12 12:17 pm, Pankaj Kumar wrote:
Hi, I have PfSense 2.0.1 installed with Multi WAN. today i figure out some
websites are not working on my LAN
please anybody can help me ?
You will probably find that certain sites don't like connections coming
from multiple different IP addresses -
On 1/11/12 6:45 am, Vinod Nadiadwala wrote:
I would like to load balacing between PPPOE connection which is ISP1 and
Static IP connection which is ISP2, please guide me is it possible to do it
with pfsense, if yes tell me the procedure.
Yes, it's perfectly possible, and in the newer 2.x
On 6 Nov 2012, at 19:24, David Burgess apt@gmail.com wrote:
With that in mind, can anybody recommend a CF card with good write speed and
good reliability?
We've used a mix of Sandisk, Transcend and Kingston cards over the years. Of
those:
- nearly all the Kingston cards have failed
On 20/11/12 2:53 pm, James Caldwell wrote:
Trying to figure out a good solution for monitoring users and building reports
to try and enforce acceptable use policies and procedures but I would really
like to avoid using any solution other than pfSense. Having asked around and
checked the
On 8/12/12 5:58 pm, David Burgess wrote:
Some CF cards are exceptionally slow to change from ro mount to rw.
Recent builds allow you to manually change this from the UI so that
you don't have to wait 40 seconds each time you make a config change.
You, sir, have my thanks.
I was going to reply
On 21/12/12 11:31 pm, James Caldwell wrote:
I'm always a little leary of the 'beta' term. Once you guys stamp it as a
release quality build I'll move up to it no problem.
If you want v6 support, you don't get a lot of choice at the moment :-)
FWIW, I've been using 2.1 nightlies in
I'm using 2.0.1-RELEASE, in a dual-WAN configuration with loadbalancing.
Some websites that require a login apparently do not like that, as I'm
constantly being asked to re-authenticate. Is there a way to make pfSense
remember the pairs of source and destination IP, and only use the other
On 19 Feb 2013, at 22:30, - Dickie Bradford - dbradf...@never-enuff.net wrote:
I had the same issue with https and constantly having to re-login, the way i
worked around it was to force all https connections out the fastest wan link.
Its not ideal , but it was the only way I found to
On 17/3/13 6:38 pm, Gerald Waugh wrote:
thanks for the response, I have ports set for '*' any
I moved this rule to the top of the rules list
TCP/UDP * * * * * none Internet to servers
Out of curiosity, have you tried protocol = * rather than just TCP/UDP?
Just
How captured the bandwith total for months?
In my experience this sort of thing is best done on an external box with
something like Cacti via SNMP from pfSense.
This way you aren't at risk of losing your stats on the pfSense box if
you need to upgrade or reimage for whatever reason.
Kind
Some ISPs that are particularly stingy with IPs and bad at routing have
been doing this.
I might be missing something, but it does seem like a pretty awful, and
at best very temporary 'solution' to IPv4 shortage.
I must admit if I were the OP, I'd probably be looking for a new DSL
provider.
On 24/4/13 7:05 pm, Mathieu Simon wrote:
Depends what you think about high specs many 1 GE ports or even 10 GE,
lots of cores etc?
This. You also have to decide whether you actually need high specs in
a router. There's little point in paying for multiple GigE or 10GE ports
if your internet
On 25/4/13 11:00 am, David Ross wrote:
http://store.netgate.com/Netgate-m1n1wall-2D3-2D13-Black-P216C83.aspx
No SSD. Runs off a 4GB CF Card.
Worth also adding this for folks who are in the UK (or for whom sourcing
stuff from the UK is cost effective):
http://linitx.com/product/13242
(similar
On 25/4/13 2:04 pm, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
I used a nagios plugin in the past that did a check on bandwidth use. It
didn't check the total data transfer like what you're asking, but it was
checking the % use of a link. I used to configure nagios so that it
warns me when my 15 mbps link was used
On 25/4/13 4:20 pm, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
Whenever I am logged into my pfSense box via SSH, I always get logged
out within some time, even when I am running something. Where can I
change that timeout value?
I have pfSense SSH windows open at the moment which have been active for
several
On 29/4/13 2:35 pm, j...@millican.us wrote:
I have a task to connect a number of small/home offices via VPN (OpenVPN
is preferred but could be IPSEC) to a central location that has a
pfSense box as its FW/Router. Does anyone have any recommendations
based on their personal experiences as to
On 29/4/13 5:11 pm, David Burgess wrote:
It could just be my own ignorance, but I have had little success trying to
connect a pair of pfsense firewalls via OpenVPN.
Really? I must admit it's always Just Worked for me (even going across
versions, e.g. 1.2 to 2.0). Far easier than trying to
On 8/5/13 7:41 pm, Marco wrote:
no IP configured
This would be your problem.
How can I make the pfsense box visible from the LAN side? Am I doing
something wrong or is this expected?
I suspect it's expected behaviour. If you want to use pfSense purely as
an access point, then you're
Greetings list,
One of our clients is currently building a property in the middle of
nowhere, and traditional (*DSL/cable/wireless) services aren't feasible,
which leaves the only option being satellite.
Unfortunately, satellite broadband services available to them only seem
to offer a
On 23/5/13 4:50 pm, Vick Khera wrote:
Still, what happens if site 1 wan1 goes down, and site 2 wan 2 goes down?
I suppose theoretically you could have 4 VPNs:
1 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 1
2 - 2
Though the OSPF rules to do that would be... interesting, to say the
least :-)
Kind regards,
Chris
--
This
On 27/5/13 6:18 pm, Zach Underwood wrote:
network 216.105.159.0/24
network 216.105.158.0/24
network 216.105.157.0/24
network 216.105.128.0/24
network 216.105.135.0/24
network 216.105.136.0/23
network 216.105.141.0/24
network 216.105.143.0/24
network 216.105.144.0/22
network 216.105.153.0/24
On 28/5/13 12:13 am, Zach Underwood wrote:
Right now we have large blocks many /24 that are not in use at this
time.
You lucky person, you :-)
The rest of us are struggling to get assignments of new v4 space, so I
suspect you're sitting on a gold mine there...
We dont want to advertise
Greetings list,
Following the recent thread entitled 'dual ISP BGP', I am curious as to
how ready people using the OpenBGP package feel it is for use as a
datacentre router managing several full BGP feeds and IXPs/private peers).
One of our clients has traditionally used Quagga for this
On 28/5/13 9:06 pm, Adam Thompson wrote:
Interesting... I've had exactly the opposite experience.
If the Mikrotik forums are to be trusted, there are certainly quite a
few people who have run into problems running full tables on even their
high end Mikrotik platforms.
Despite Quagga's
On 29/5/13 9:39 am, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Which hardware are you using? If you're pushing 5 GBit/s you
might be running into hardware limitations. There was a thread
about it on nanog a week or two ago.
I'm quite impressed Mikrotik hardware is able to sustain 5Gbps with full
BGP tables from
On 30/9/13 7:56 am, Seth Mos wrote:
I finally bit the bullet and signed up for PI space with a ASN and
hopefully that's that.
Worth mentioning here that no more IPv4 PI ranges will be allocated - at
least not within RIPE jurisdiction (conservation rules kicked in when we
started on the last
On 1 Oct 2013, at 14:31, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
But you're going to pay the annual fee. Or is PI
for end user through sponsoring LIR possible without
incurring annual costs?
I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in RIPE-land, most LIRs charge
around 70GBP per annum to
I've deliberately stayed out of the political discussion, but interested in
this more technical discussion…
On 10 Oct 2013, at 14:50, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
2. Cipher Selection - we're not all cryptoanalysts, so statements like 'trust
the math' don't always mean much to us,
Greetings list,
Does anyone know if it's possible to 'sync' alias lists across pfSense units?
I could probably knock something together in $scripting_language_du_jour to
backup each unit's config, update the alias list, then restore the new config
back to the device, but a) that would involve
On 10 Oct 2013, at 15:25, Vick Khera vi...@khera.org wrote:
The HA facility of pfSense will sync various configs. Look at the checkboxes
to determine what gets synced to see if that is suitable for your need.
Is that not designed for multiple units at one site?
In this scenario, the client
On 11/10/13 2:37 pm, Seth Mos wrote:
And which country would that be? I mean the Brittish MI4? tapped the
Belgian telecom network for over a year to listen into the EU politicians...
Who is this MI4 of whom you speak? :-)
In very broad terms, UK to USA equivalents would be as follows:
GCHQ =
On 24/10/13 5:30 pm, Thinker Rix wrote:
I want to have:
- full Gigabit wire speed between the DMZ and the LAN zone (i.e. 2x
Gigabit at max)
Would have thought you'd be fine here.
- full 450Mbps between the WLAN and pfsense
Even with 450Mbps *radios* I'd be amazed if you get more than
On 25/10/13 12:02 am, Thinker Rix wrote:
Ok, I see. Does this change with a router that has a Gigabit-NIC to
connect with pfSense, or isn't that the bottle neck?
I've never encountered even a 100Mbps NIC being a wireless bottleneck at
2.4Ghz. The limitation is effective throughput through the
On 24/10/13 7:31 pm, Adam Thompson wrote:
If I upgraded to a better-quality unit, or switched to licensed
spectrum, I could probably eliminate the variability and increase speed
simultaneously.
Indeed, we have Ubiquiti kit running point to point links in the 5Ghz
unlicensed spectrum (band C)
On 3/11/13 3:27 pm, Peder Rovelstad wrote:
Just a quick question for anyone who cares to reply, something I can't
figure out. I have the default LAN - Any rule active on the LAN
interface, but I often see block entries such as those attached, in this
case from my kid's iPad to Google. Other
On 6/11/13 7:11 am, Thinker Rix wrote:
Unfortunately the motherboards I plan to buy supports only the
above-mentioned CPUs.
- Pentium
- 4th generation core i3
- Xeon E3-1200 v3
If your board supports a Core i3, it is *very* unlikely that it won't
also support the i5 of the same generation
On 6/11/13 12:30 pm, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Anyone running pfSense on a HP Microserver G8?
I have - in the past - had it running on a G5 and a G6 if that's any help.
One of our clients is using it on a G7.
lspci on both mine show:
Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5723 Gigabit Ethernet PCIe (rev
We recently relocated and are waiting to get our primary connection
installed, so in the mean time we're on a 3Mb/0.75Mb DSL line. However,
pfSense often shows 6Mb/s coming out of the LAN during a download.
Same problem here.
I am not seeing incorrect traffic graphs in 2.1, and I am using
On 13/12/13 5:48 am, Walter Parker wrote:
What do I need to do to get the firewall to use the COMCASTGW for responses
to packets sent to the COMCAST interface?
Unless you're using advanced outbound NAT, this should happen automatically.
You said:
I have a rule on the Comcast interface the
On 13/12/13 1:12 pm, Jim Pingle wrote:
* Don't use interface groups or multi-interface floating rules for WAN rule
I stand corrected. You learn something new every day :-)
As an aside, is there any way to 'fix' this? On a system with 4 or 5
WANs, the ability to define inbound rules that
Greetings list,
I've recently been working on a project in which Squid would be beneficial.
So I thought a good starting point would be to try installing one of the
pfSense Squid packages on my home pfSense, play around with the config,
etc. before setting it up for the project in question. I
On 28/1/14 4:41 pm, Brian Caouette wrote:
I'm running the 3.x over here with no problems. I haven't really noticed
much of a performance gain however. I've been reading up on tweaking the
settings but so far our hit rate has only been 1-2%.
Thanks - I'll give that a try.
In this context, it's
On 29/1/14 10:57 am, Brian Candler wrote:
My uplink is using PPPoE into a DSL router in bridged mode. The
connectivity is fine, but the MTU is 1492 and I would like to bump this
up to 1500 (assuming the router will take ethernet frames which are 1508
bytes).
I looked at this about a year ago
On 14/2/14 3:37 pm, Thinker Rix wrote:
I have had entered some domain names there in the past, which always
worked flawlessly.
Recently I changed ISP and since then the domain names are not resolved
anymore to IPs, so that the traffic using those aliases gets blocked by
the firewall.
When
On 14/2/14 4:48 pm, Thinker Rix wrote:
Any ideas what could be the problem?
Have you tried entering the DNS servers your ISP supplies via PPP or
DHCP (look on the Status - Interfaces page, they should be listed on
there) manually on the General settings page, then disabling DNS via
On 15/2/14 6:22 pm, Brian Caouette wrote:
I've been trying to use unbound with poor results. Currently it resolves
very very slowly. About 4 times longer then the default dns forwarder.
Once the site is found and loaded however browsing the site is
incredibly fast. Curious what might be the
Greetings list,
A few days ago I finally found time to upgrade my ageing pfSense 2.1-RC0
at home to 2.1 final. Since that upgrade I've noticed that pfSense
doesn't seem to be handling state killing on failed gateways very well.
A bit of background: I live in a rural location with poor
On 1/3/14 2:37 am, Ryan Coleman wrote:
I just checked google and the “best” solution from a few versions ago is to
reserve the MAC IP to something out of range.
I’d like to find a “simple” way to do that for my customer. Is there a better
way to block a MAC?
At the risk of thinking outside
On 11/3/14 6:48 pm, Justin Edmands wrote:
The current rules all read * for the Gateway. Do all of my current LAN,
OpenVPN, and IPSec rules need to be altered to include the Gateway as the
new Failover1 rule?
Those that rely on the WANs, yes. Rules to allow traffic to pass between
your VPNs
On 20/3/14 7:14 pm, A Mohan Rao wrote:
I m using squid squid guard and light squid for user access websites
reporting with live but there is pfsense not read or show ftp server access
logs.
I also try as pfsense firewall client and to to any other ftp sites then
download files but in proxy
On 20/3/14 7:19 pm, A Mohan Rao wrote:
Ok thanks but if i need how i maintain ftp traffic logs.
Not really relevant to the question, I appreciate, but I can't think of
a good reason why you'd want to do that, unless of course you're running
the FTP server, in which case your FTP server
On 20/3/14 7:22 pm, A Mohan Rao wrote:
Also i struggling to block https social networking sites like facebook etc
from last 1to 1.5 years. I used for block that domain through DNS
FORWARDER. But when user use open dns its working pls any idea its very
helpful for me.
You might find it easier
On 20/3/14 8:42 pm, Rafael Akchurin wrote:
May be this will be of any help -
http://sichent.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/filtering-https-traffic-with-squid-on-pfsense-2-1/
That approach does require that your users 'trust' the proxy and allow
the necessary certificates.
It's all well and good
On 24 Mar 2014, at 19:19, A Mohan Rao mohanra...@gmail.com wrote:
I need to block whatsapp facebook etc android apps of pfsense users.
Given that you seem to want to block everything under the sun (though I still
don't understand why), how about doing it the other way round? Why not decide
On 27/3/14 8:17 pm, Walter Parker wrote:
That's what I would recommend. The VPN can serve as a second gateway to
protect the RDP from the outside world, so you could pitch this solution as
higher security method of network access.
This.
There seem to be lots of dictionary attacks against RDP
On 28/3/14 4:03 pm, Walter Parker wrote:
I'd love it if there was simple solution, but I don't see one that would
compatible with today's internet. Much of the original design of the
internet was for a 1 to 1 mapping of IP addresses, rather than a 1 to many
mapping (which is why there is usually
On 2/4/14 9:17 pm, Thinker Rix wrote:
Unfortunately again only 3 NICs... and Realteks with bad performance.
I would love to see such a board one day with at least 4-8 NICs.
On that subject, we've recently been experimenting with these:
On 13/4/14 4:25 pm, Adam Thompson wrote:
As to the liberated comment, let us know when you've figured out how
to make a completely open eReader that doesn't sell for $1000.
Nexus 7 + fbreader (freely available)?
Opens all the usual suspects (pub, mobi, pdf, etc.)
If you don't mind one of the
On 23/4/14 4:46 pm, Vick Khera wrote:
I reconfigured them to use geom mirror instead, and everything has
been much better since. The FreeBSD kernel does a fine job managing
the mirror all by itself.
We have some DL160s with the same B110i controller running as Linux KVM
host machines, and
On 29/4/14 7:40 pm, Vick Khera wrote:
I've now upgraded 3 separate ALIX boards to 2.1.2 (one from 2.1.0, the
other two from 2.0.1) with zero failures.
Perhaps try upgrade from the console menu. Just make sure that the
upgrade URL is configured correctly for the i386 version of pfsense.
Also
On 30/4/14 12:31 am, Ryan Coleman wrote:
4GB CF cards are pretty cheap these days - I would just buy one in the store
($20) or online ($10 or so) and image that, pop it in the firewall and import
your config.
Agreed, if the devices are suitably close to you. A bit more of a
problem if
On 9 May 2014, at 23:25, Dave Warren da...@hireahit.com wrote:
I'm looking on eBay as well, it's worth the gamble vs buying new.
Not pfSense-specific, but I've used quite a few from eBay (both dual and quad
port cards) in generic FreeBSD installs and not had a problem with them.
As others have
I concur with Ryan's readings with the 2950s - we use them as KVM host machines
in a datacentre environment and they average around 250W under moderate load.
That's with 4x SSDs in each.
Also worth mentioning that pfSense will barely use a gig of disk space; the 6x
73GB SAS units specced by
On 20 May 2014, at 18:45, Brian Caouette bri...@dlois.com wrote:
What software is available to do virtual machines?
We use KVM.
Kind regards,
Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
On 20 May 2014, at 21:37, Harlan Stenn har...@everett.org wrote:
Where are you that you get electricity for .05/kWh? Here in Oregon we
have pretty great rates, and I think we're paying .10-.12/kWh.
I don't know where the OP hails from, but here in the UK (Scotland,
specifically, at the
Brian Caouette wrote:
How much space should be allocated for pfsense and squid?
In the office here I have 30GB allocated for squid to use as a cache. In
this case where the chaps in the workshop are often downloading things
like Windows Updates, software packages, etc., the size was chosen
On 3/6/14 7:21 pm, Brian Caouette wrote:
I just installed the NRPE package to pfSense. How its it used? Is there
a docs page to make this work with pf?
The first thing you'll need is a working install of Nagios somewhere -
do you already have that in hand?
As an aside, another option to
On 12/6/14 11:06 pm, Jon Gerdes wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only downside is I lose another address to act
as the gateway.
Can anyone spot any flaws with this method or is it a general practice?
Certainly assigning the first IP in a /29 to the PPPoE client is fairly
standard practice in
On 17/6/14 10:32 am, A Mohan Rao wrote:
actually i need to block https sites like https facebook or https youtube
etc with transparent proxy.
So in order to block Facebook and Youtube, you're going to put all your
users at risk of SSL MITM attacks on every secure website they visit?
You
Greetings list,
I'm trying to persuade the Squid 3 package to use a load balancing
gateway group, unfortunately without much success.
I'm afraid my google-fu is failing me:
- this link from the official docs seems to relate to 1.2:
On 16/7/14 3:25 pm, Brian Caouette wrote:
#1. Initial page lookups are really slow. When I enter a website it will
pause for 6-8 seconds then the page is instantly there. I have Googles
DNS set in general and currently have stock DNS Forwarder active. It's
set to use system defaults.
As a
On 21/7/14 4:27 pm, Kevin Tollison wrote:
I have used internal card in the past and they typically work well. We have
found that an external AP gives a lot more flexibility to an install.
+1 for external APs. Your environments may be different, but during
installs we often find the best place
On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
the case?
The one I've
On 23/7/14 2:10 am, Jim Thompson wrote:
Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.
Please stay on topic.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Given the APU is - as the de facto successor to the ALIX - likely to be
a piece of hardware used in a lot of new pfSense installs, discussion
about its
On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote:
I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a
public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have
sent it privately instead of publicly.
I can't work out if the above is directed at me or Jim.
(I
On 27/7/14 7:06 pm, Matthias May wrote:
With intel cards on the same board you can get up to 650 Mbit/s, but i
expect it to be lower with additional rules.
Have you tried it with Intel cards (I assume you're talking mPCIe
cards?) - and if so, what chassis did you use?
The ability to install
On 8 Sep 2014, at 18:07, Joe Laffey j...@laffey.tv wrote:
Anyone using Load Balancing for a triple WAN setup? This work OK in pfSense?
What about older 1.2.3 systems?
I have a triple WAN setup at home, which worked fine in 2.0 and likewise now in
2.1. There are limitations in 1.2.3 that
On 9 Sep 2014, at 14:01, Albert Dengg alb...@fsfe.org wrote:
the second question is also related to virtual ip's:
is there a way to configure a failover for the second wan interface,
if there is only one ip assigned to me by the isp?
My understanding (and this isn’t limited to pfSense - I’ve
On 9 Sep 2014, at 14:46, Albert Dengg alb...@fsfe.org wrote:
that however still leaves with the problem of the interface mixups
for my internal networks, where the sync tries to assignt the
virtual ip's to the wrong interfaces….
Is your hardware (and interface names) identical across both your
On 18/9/14 8:13 pm, Nick Upson wrote:
We have a new /27 range to go with this new installation and here is the
problem, external ping/connectivity to the new IPs doesn't work except one
the .225 address, it seems the firebrick requires ARP in order to route
them. I have setup several different
On 19/9/14 4:41 pm, Ryan Coleman wrote:
Also what browser is that?
Looks like Firefox to me...
Disabled your add-ons (I see there are a few of them - could be an issue)?
This is definitely worth a try.
As an aside, one of the first things I do with a fresh pfSense install
is to revert
On 22/9/14 5:10 pm, mayak wrote:
in an earlier thread, i recounted issues that i had with the apu1c4 unit
silently dying -- this was the only thread that i saw here, so i assume
that i just got a bad unit.
I cannot give you a sample of 20 - they're too new for that - but I can
say of the
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
