further
brain damage). I'd rather just use an ADSL2+ modem -- however,
I'd like to be able to use IPv6 with these (MNet already
offers experimental IPv6 support).
Anyone aware of a decent ADSL2+ modem which can handle some
1 MBit/s upstream and some 18 MBit/s downstream, as well as IPv6?
--
Eugen
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 02:10:10PM +0200, Seth Mos wrote:
On 21-9-2011 13:49, Eugen Leitl wrote:
I'm looking to add an ADSL2+ as second WAN to my home pfSense.
Unfortunately, the ISP (MNet) only offers FritzBox routers,
which have multiple issues (e.g. SSH session timeouts with
the official
Is anyone running IPv6 on 2.0 as described on
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Using_IPv6_on_2.0
Are you having any problems with it so far?
I currently have native IPv6 in the colo, but rather
not screw up the remote firewalls (one is even without
IPMI).
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 04:28:53PM +0100, Seth Mos wrote:
Hi Eugen,
Op 20 nov 2011, om 13:04 heeft Eugen Leitl het volgende geschreven:
Is anyone running IPv6 on 2.0 as described on
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Using_IPv6_on_2.0
I've been running it in production on a carp
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 04:36:51PM +0100, Seth Mos wrote:
Hi,
Op 20 nov 2011, om 16:33 heeft Eugen Leitl het volgende geschreven:
Great, I'll take the plunge, then. Thanks!
Just for extra clarification, the images on
http://files.pfsense.org/jimp/ipv6/ are the easiest to start rolling
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 04:36:51PM +0100, Seth Mos wrote:
Hi,
Op 20 nov 2011, om 16:33 heeft Eugen Leitl het volgende geschreven:
Great, I'll take the plunge, then. Thanks!
Just for extra clarification, the images on
http://files.pfsense.org/jimp/ipv6/ are the easiest to start rolling
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:39:00AM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
inet6 fe80::225:90ff:fe02:1a4e%em0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3
inet6 2a01:4f8:7d:300:: prefixlen 56
Anyone knows how disable IPv6 autoconfig in pfSense?
Sorry, I'm an idiot, disregard. Assigned the wrong IPv6
address
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:22:16AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
On 11/23/2011 4:21 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Just upgraded to
http://files.pfsense.org/jimp/ipv6/pfSense-Full-Update-2.1-DEVELOPMENT-i386-20111021-1243.tgz
on a SuperMicro Atom -- system boots fine but I'm getting
Crash report
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:42:41AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
On 11/23/2011 10:36 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Thanks -- did that, and rebooted.
[snip]
Crash report details:
Did you submit the report? If so, did it give you an error when it
submitted?
Yes, submitted, and no error given
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
On 11/23/2011 11:09 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
I did see something like that. Just repeated the
above, and it seems the last sync did succeed:
# pfSsh.php playback gitsync master
Starting the pfSense shell system
mixed network masks
on the same LAN do. I was not able to ping the WAN interface
at all.
I reset the LAN back to 10.0.0.1/24 via an IPMI session, at
which point the system sprang back.
I'll try doing the same with a /16 mask, let's see what that
does.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl
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 Fri Oct 21 12:51:56 EDT 2011). I
I've got a /28 and 3x /24 the latter of which I want to map
1:1 to private address space (e.g. each /24 to 10.0.x.0/24).
My pfSense version is 2.1-DEVELOPMENT (i386)
built on Fri Oct 21 12:51:56 EDT 2011
I've got a setup where hosts and firewalls look like this
WAN LAN
switch1 -
think I'll do some experimenting by isolating hosts on a
different, unreachable VLAN. This only works because the hosts
are in very limited production, so some dowtime is tolerable.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 02:28:14PM -0500, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
Why would you do that?
To improve throughput on the home LAN. House is 40+ years
old, doesn't have conduits -- so there is a number of
daisy-chained switches hanging on the central one.
Modern drives are fast enough to saturate a
.
Other than that, it won't impact anything.
It definitely did boost SMB throughput, and will probably
help with NFS even better.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http
old
again for snort rules, probably?
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
I'm getting a
Warning: opendir(/usr/local/etc/snort/snort_10053_igb1/rules/): failed to
open dir: No such file or directory in
/usr/local/www/snort/snort_rulesets.php on line 251 Warning: readdir():
supplied argument
package.
Installation halted.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
You people with i386 2.0.1, what do you have in your
Firmware Auto Update URL field?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:31:21AM +0300, joseph malai wrote:
pls dont sent me ur staff
stff lready usnt. dycpy?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 09:48:54PM -0400, Jim Pingle wrote:
FYI-
2.1 snapshots are going again.
http://snapshots.pfsense.org/
Great. How stable are they? Useful for limited production?
If you want to track via auto update...
pfSense i386 2.1 DEVELOPMENT snapshots
I need to make terminate a VPN tunnel (users behind NAT)
with above Cisco box.
Parameters are
ISAKMP Phase I
preshared key
AES128
SHA
Group 2
Lifetime 28800 sec
IPSEC Phase II
AES 128
SHA
Group 2
Perfect forwarding secrecy: No
Lifetime 3600 sec
Anyone terminating such IPsec tunnels to Cisco?
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:28:52AM -0400, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
I need to make terminate a VPN tunnel (users behind NAT)
with above Cisco box.
Parameters are
ISAKMP Phase I
preshared key
AES128
SHA
Group 2
. (there is an ipv6.level3.com).
Does anyone know about their plans for next week? I don't see them on
WorldIPv6Day's lists.
Frank
- End forwarded message -
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM
My WAN is on 10.0.2.6/30, and I can't get my tunnel up! Argh.
Same tunnel config on a different pfSense (2.1, actually)
and regular public IPs on WAN goes up green no issues.
A Cisco is on the other end.
I do have block private networks/bogon networks unchecked.
This is 2.0 stable. Halp! My
issues
first. Is there some RFC1918 blocking code built-in in IPsec, at least
with 2.0.1?
-Original Message-
From: list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org
[mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org]
On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:34 PM
To: List@lists.pfsense.org
Of Eugen Leitl
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:34 PM
To: List@lists.pfsense.org
Subject: [pfSense] can it be that having WAN on RFC1918 space fucks up
site
to site IPsec tunnel?
My WAN is on 10.0.2.6/30, and I can't get my tunnel up! Argh.
Same tunnel config on a different
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:42:44PM -0500, Ryan Rodrigue wrote:
Is the vulgarity in the subject really necessary?
Sorry about triggering any sensibilities. Didn't realize
that was an actual cussword in some parts of the world.
Will try to stick strictly to rainbow- and pony-related
imagery.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 02:36:21PM -0400, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
If provider is providing you NATed internet access...my best guess is you
It's not NATed. They're rewriting the packet headers. The only
NAT there is is our own.
also are being filtered. Take it up with ISP and they can prob help,
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:03:31PM -0500, Tim Nelson wrote:
It's not NATed. They're rewriting the packet headers. The only
NAT there is is our own.
Isn't rewriting of the packet headers the exact definition of NAT aka
Network Address Translation ?
It's a simple 1:1 mapping from
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:48:24PM -0400, Ian Bowers wrote:
What people commonly think of as NAT is more correctly called dynamic
PAT. 1:1 mapping of network addresses is static nat. Not trying to
nitpick, just letting on why some people might be confused.
Thanks. Appreciated, I'm really not
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:55:10PM -0400, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
Real question. If you have actual internet IPs that are being 1:1 referenced
to you, why are they doing static NAT on you in the first place instead of
just routing all the way thru to you? Are you sure they are not sharing your
On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 01:14:12PM +0200, Adam Thompson wrote:
Are there any JunOS features you consider killer that are not in
pfSense 2.1? What would be these features?
Hardware offload: you can scale vertically with JunOS platforms with the
simple addition of more money, whereas an
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Chris Bagnall wrote:
On 1/7/12 4:47 pm, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Are there any JunOS features you consider killer that
are not in pfSense 2.1? What would be these features?
'JunOS' is a fairly vague comparison point - the JunOS feature set
supported
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 06:11:47PM -0500, Adam Thompson wrote:
You can run IP over firewire. It's fairly straight-forward after
that.
...
For connecting to pfSense boxes back-to-back, sure, use fwe interfaces...
but they'll generally only run at 1394a speeds (aka 400Mbit/sec), so
with OSR, BIRD and Quagga involvement.
There'll be one at RIPE65 again I think. Either way if you have
questions, feel free to ask.
-David
- End forwarded message -
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 11:15:01AM +0530, Gagan VERMA wrote:
Hi All,
This is to inform you that our organization is using *pfSense 2.0.1-RELEASE
(amd64) * from last six months and is very helpful solution for our org.
* *
But there is a concern that Gmail and Facebook uses https port to
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 01:11:14PM +0100, Erik Augustsson wrote:
So my question is. If I install pfsense at location A. Can I use that to
tunnel/route my public PI network to my servers at location B?
I would be probably looking at the OpenVPN pfsense package.
P.S. In case you solve your
I need to firewall a 100 MBit/s symmetrical site and
want to reuse my ALIX 2D3 with Soekris VPN accelerator
as this is a nonprofit with no budget.
Can the hardware still handle pfSense 2.1 without
choking? I'll be getting ~70-75 MBit/s max, right?
___
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:30:11PM -0500, Vick Khera wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
~85 Mbps max. Not going to fill a 100 Mb pipe, but will work.
Thanks, that will do plenty.
I think you will find it barely handling that load. Will you
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 06:07:19PM +0100, WolfSec-Support wrote:
hello
I did some research already, but find no real good answer, so:
what would be the troughput of a OpenVPN pfsense box with 1.6 Ghz CPU ?
Which CPU? Atom?
sure, depends on encryption level, too.
but any example would
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:30:17AM -0600, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
I had a hang with 2.1-BETA1 (i386) update to 2.1-BETA (amd64) (on
Intel D510) which I solved by a reset. The upgrade seems to have
succeeded, though
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 08:44:29AM -0700, James Caldwell wrote:
Awesome work guys, looking forward to 2.1!
2.1BETA1 has been working quite well for me
(at home, at least).
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:04:34PM -0500, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
Hi,
I'm still using a WRAP box for my pfSense at home. Should I change it?
It works OK, but I'm stuck at V 2.0.0 for now. Will 2.1 run on WRAP?
With the speed of courrent connections (100+ MBit/s) I would
probably invest into
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 07:18:26PM +0100, Chris Bagnall wrote:
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
I'm moving colo (yay, no more 2 h drives) and
have to renumber. Jiggle my memory, is a /29
enough for a carp/pfsync failover cluster?
so that
.129 gateway
.130 switch (theoretically not really required, but)
.131 fw1
.132 fw2
.133 carp1
.134 carp2
?
Thanks, and happy weekend.
for IPv6 and
Track Interface as IPv6 configuration type for
LAN I sometimes have no IPv6 connectivity on
Windows 7 (while I can ping6 on pfSense just fine).
Any idea what is breaking here?
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
it blindly, since that firewall has no
IPMI, and is hidden in a cramped wall rack which is a royal
PITA).
Thanks.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
__
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 04:25:10PM +0530, Joy wrote:
Hi Team,
Is it possible to use cloud based web filtering with pfsense
like open dns based filtering.
in case yes what software does that like websense etc ?
Have you tried just putting in OpenDNS resolvers under
I'm having issues understanding how to route
additional networks with 2.1RC0, given that
WAN is on a subnet (/29 -- there will
be a carp/pfsync cluster once it's debugged).
I have a /26 (which can be
eventually expanded to /24 or /23
without renumbering) and a /28,
which need to be routed WAN to
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:40:07PM -0400, Glenn Kelley wrote:
In short
BGP would just stop working - and the system would bail.
This happened on multiple hardware implementations - Dell 2950, Dell R300,
HP Equipment as well.
I have asked Chris (who gave up his July 4th Holiday and
I have an old ALIX 2d3 with Geode LX which has a hardware
RNG as well as HiFn 7955, which also has a hardware RNG.
1) can I use them both in pfSense, or FreeBSD?
2) can I make them feed into Yarrow, or do they supercede
Yarrow when present? Is there a priority, which of
these gets selected?
In
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 07:17:30AM -0400, Jim Pingle wrote:
The main limitation here is RAM, if your Alix has 256 MB it should be
fine really. The forwarding rate is limited to about 70 mbit, so if you
need more only the newer Soekris 6500 series would work.
Keep your eye on this one,
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 07:41:11AM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sep 20, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Odette Nsaka odette.ns...@libero.it wrote:
Does somebody know other reliable and cheap embedded platforms running
pfSense with no problem?
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 06:14:01AM -0500, Cheyenne Deal wrote:
I recently upgraded to 2.1-RELEASE and noticed that many things are running
much smoother than before.
I saw that 2.1 had native IPv6 functionality built in. I have attempted to
follow the instructions provided by the wiki. I have
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:15:34PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
If you need SLAAC, a /64 is your only option.
If you don't need SLAAC on your network segment, and you
don't need a /64, then you can use a longer prefix length.
All the IPv6 guys I asked said to never do that.
I can see when I
every grain of
sand on the world's beaches doesn't describe reality very well.
The IPv6 addressing plan didn't wind up meeting our requirements very well.
Film at 11.
Joe
- End forwarded message -
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:52:31AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
All in all, apply for a /48 PI IPv6 allocation if you're an
end-user. You won't have to renumber (ever) again.
But you're going to pay the annual fee. Or is PI
for end user through sponsoring LIR possible without
incurring annual
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 06:54:55AM +0200, Olivier Mascia wrote:
Le 3 oct. 2013 à 13:26, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org a écrit :
I've got a /64 and /48 from HE.net tunnelbroker, and followed
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Using_IPv6_on_2.1_with_a_Tunnel_Broker
The tunnel is working (I
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:20:11AM -0400, Paul Kunicki wrote:
I think that in light of the recent news of the NSA coercing various
organizations to provide them with means to eavesdrop this message has
merit and deserves response although I doubt the NSA really needs
cooperation from these
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 12:10:00PM -0400, Jim Pingle wrote:
On 10/9/2013 11:32 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
From the news i've read... a couple of questions for the pfsense developers
come to mind:
1. Random Number generation
- NSA is reported to have weakened several random number
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:42:31AM -0500, Adam Thompson wrote:
Argh. Anyone who answered Yes to your question (correctly, mind you) would
immediately be committing a federal crime.
All assuming the company in question resides in the US, or has
significant presence in the US. There is, of
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:50:53PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:
IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in
stroking their own ego.
Sorry, this is not BS. The situation has changed, and we have to adapt.
It doesn’t contribute anything to the project.
It
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:17:25PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:
Sorry, this is not BS. The situation has changed, and we have to adapt.
The situation did not change with the Snowden revelations. Anyone following
along has known what was going on for at least the last decade.
The difference
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 07:53:24PM +0200, Jim Thompson wrote:
Also, the source of git would also reveal a problem when examined. To get
around that one starts hypothesizing the sort of globe-spanning conspiracy
against which one might as well give up (well, maybe all my compilers (not
just
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:20:56PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
I just worked out setting up new filters for the recent S/N
destroying, high tin-foil-hat content, on gmail. Since people
pleading for this to go away hasn't worked, technological measures
to restore S/N for my inbox on this list
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 02:50:41PM +0100, Giles Coochey wrote:
1. The random number generator - As pfSense uses FreeBSD this may
well be a FreeBSD specific question, however, are there any ways
within pfsense that we can improve the entropy pool that the random
number gets its randomness
can now be trusted?
Message-ID: 52571f24.4030...@echeque.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/24.0
On 2013-10-11 00:39, Eugen Leitl wrote:
- Forwarded message from Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net -
2. Cipher Selection - we're not all
: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/24.0
On 2013-10-10 22:21, Eugen Leitl wrote:
- Forwarded message from Jim Pingle li...@pingle.org -
I haven't yet seen anything conclusive. People have called into question
some or all of ECC, NSA's suggested Suite B, and so
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 01:41:40PM -0400, Adrian Wenzel wrote:
I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do
agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading)
and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most
members who write and
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 07:18:28PM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
The topic has wandered away from pfSense.
It is rather interesting though, so please don't kill that
thread just yet.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 09:11:08AM +0200, Thinker Rix wrote:
Unfortunately the motherboards I plan to buy supports only the
above-mentioned CPUs.
Anyone running pfSense on a HP Microserver G8?
http://b3n.org/installed-xeon-e3-1230v2-in-gen8-hp-microserver/
These are dual Broadcoms BCM5717
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 04:12:09PM +, Chris Bagnall wrote:
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
I've been running dual-WAN with a single pfSense for a while,
and was not very happy with it due to some hard to diagnose
strangeness (some connections time out). This might be due
to hardware trouble though.
As I've retired two pfSense firewalls from production recently
I'm considering running
http://rtfm.net/FreeBSD/ERL/
FreeBSD 10.0 on Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite
The Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite is a neat little device that costs less than
US$100, has three Ethernet ports, and can run FreeBSD/mips. It's based on the
Cavium Octeon CN5020 platform and features a dual core 500mhz MIPS64
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 08:05:17AM -0700, David Burgess wrote:
That's great news. Does anybody care to speculate whether FreeBSD will be
able to take advantage of the packet forwarding acceleration of this
hardware at some point?
IIRC you need NDAs for that, so unless it's cleanroom reversed
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 09:44:46AM -0600, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Feb 12, 2014, at 9:41 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 08:05:17AM -0700, David Burgess wrote:
That's great news. Does anybody care to speculate whether FreeBSD will be
able to take
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:35:56AM -0600, Jim Thompson wrote:
Can the blobs be reversed so easily? (Too bad about lack of IPv6
offloading, but we can live with that for a while, I guess).
I don’t know. If you’re really curious, you can read this:
Apu.1c
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Embeddded-Mainboard-mit-x86-CPU-und-Coreboot-2160404.html
http://www.pcengines.ch/apu1c.htm
in stock, €105.13
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
We encountered Cisco VPN client (Cisco Systems VPN Client Version 5.0.07.0440)
connection issues in the last couple days after I've upgraded to
2.1.2-RELEASE (amd64) recently.
The issues disappear when client connects though a different gateway
(an ADSL Fritzbox 7270 with latest firmware).
I
- Forwarded message from David Farber far...@gmail.com -
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:05:40 -0400
From: David Farber far...@gmail.com
To: ip i...@listbox.com
Subject: [IP] How the NSA tampers with US-made Internet routers
Message-Id: 52e5077f-83dc-4d50-bbed-b25c96532...@gmail.com
X-Mailer:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:53:15PM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote:
so sad as this is the ideal platform that i was after.
It’s nice, (and I have zero problems in a 24C ambient), but I wouldn’t call
it “Ideal”.
(watch this space)
Heavy breathing intensifies.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote:
Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to
fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built
and tested?
http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
84 matches
Mail list logo
