On Dec 26, 2007 3:11 PM, James Kusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So do you suggest I use PPPoE at the pfSense firewall and just bridge the
> modem? Right now I have the modem dialed to the account(DSL) for PPPoA and
> the modem is carrying a static gateway IP on its outside port and the inside
If possible the modem should be nothing more than a delivery mechanism for
network transport. No IP address, no routing, no configuration really.
Curtis
]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:50 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
On Dec 26, 2007 1:30 PM, James Kusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or I can bridge the modem and connect using the firewall on PPPoE.
With PPPoE and pfSense termin
On Dec 26, 2007 1:30 PM, James Kusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or I can bridge the modem and connect using the firewall on PPPoE.
With PPPoE and pfSense terminating the connection, 'other' is the
option you want for virtual IPs.
--Bill
s.com
-Original Message-
From: James Kusler
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:32 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
I have just installed to hard drive the latest version (1.2-RC3).
So I am starting with a fresh system. We'll see what happens.
Again,
Sense Support] Virtual Ips
On Dec 26, 2007 12:13 PM, James Kusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It gave the choices 'CARP', 'Web Proxy', and 'Other'. So if that has
> changed in the newer version that may help.
If it truly says "Web Proxy", yo
@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
On Dec 26, 2007 12:13 PM, James Kusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It gave the choices 'CARP', 'Web Proxy', and 'Other'. So if that has
> changed in the newer version that may help.
If it truly says "
7 11:19 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
On Dec 26, 2007 12:13 PM, James Kusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It gave the choices 'CARP', 'Web Proxy', and 'Other'. So if that has
> changed in the newer version that may he
On Dec 26, 2007 12:13 PM, James Kusler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It gave the choices 'CARP', 'Web Proxy', and 'Other'. So if that has
> changed in the newer version that may help.
If it truly says "Web Proxy", you didn't get an official release from
us! It should read, CARP, Proxy ARP, and Ot
may be a
misconfiguration on the server itself.
-Tim
From: Ryan Rodrigue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:05 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
Sorry. I forgot to let you know. I do have the correct IP address assigned
by
and the block what i don't need after.
-Original Message-
From: Tim Dickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:19 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
What are the rules you are using on the WAN for traffic.
Keep in
.
-Tim
From: Ryan Rodrigue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:27 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
I have it setup as Proxy ARP
I went to 1:1 NAT and firewall rules and specified the 73 and 72 as two
seperate entries using the
urtis LaMasters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:00 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
Under Virtual IP's are you using Carp, Proxy Arp, or IP? If you want to use
1:1 NAT, go ahead and do so for that specific IP address, then
t;http://www.sound-tele.com/> | www.solaxis.com
<http://www.solaxis.com/>
From: Curtis LaMasters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:00 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
Under Virtual IP's a
__
From: Curtis LaMasters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:00 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
Under Virtual IP's are you using Carp, Proxy Arp, or IP? If you want to
use 1:1 NAT, go ahead and do so f
Under Virtual IP's are you using Carp, Proxy Arp, or IP? If you want to use
1:1 NAT, go ahead and do so for that specific IP address, then under the
firewall rules add in a rule to match the traffic you would like to permit.
It should be that simple. Additionally, the IP's 73 and 72 are within yo
sorry. i mistyped. I am at 1.2RC3
-Original Message-
From: Sean Cavanaugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:41 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
First step, upgrade to latest release, 1.2-RC3 as there have been MANY
er 26, 2007 11:18 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
I am having the same problem. I have an external IP from Qwest which is
part of an 8-IP address block. That IP is the "gateway" and the others
are for my use. SO I am trying to assign them to devi
First step, upgrade to latest release, 1.2-RC3 as there have been MANY fixes
put in since 1.0.1
-Sean
> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:17:45 -0800> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> support@pfsense.com> Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips> > I am
> having the
.sound-tele.com | www.solaxis.com
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Rodrigue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 9:19 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Virtual Ips
I have a stupid question.. I am trying to set up 2 servers with a
seperate
external IP ad
I have a stupid question.. I am trying to set up 2 servers with a seperate
external IP adresses. My wan IP is x.x.x.74 I want to use x.x.x.73 for
server 1 and x.x.x.72 for server 2. Server 1 is 192.168.1.10 and server 2
is 192.168.1.11. I think i have to set this up in 1:1 nat, Firewall rules,
> On 10/29/05, Nate Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> OK, I figured out the problem I was having... Turns out that for FTP,
>> which is what I was trying to Port Forward with, there is a userland
>> FTP-Proxy that is turned on by default. This was causing the Incoming
>> FTP
>> Con
On 10/29/05, Nate Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> OK, I figured out the problem I was having... Turns out that for FTP,
> which is what I was trying to Port Forward with, there is a userland
> FTP-Proxy that is turned on by default. This was causing the Incoming FTP
> Connections to
Howdy,
OK, I figured out the problem I was having... Turns out that for FTP,
which is what I was trying to Port Forward with, there is a userland
FTP-Proxy that is turned on by default. This was causing the Incoming FTP
Connections to hang and timeout. I turned this off in the Advanced Page,
an
Chris,
Thanks for the clarification. I will be doing a 1:1 Nat for the Mail
Server for sure. That seems like the best route for the Mail Server.
I guess you would call it Standard NAT (TCP). Not sure exactly what you
are asking specifically. Let me see if this example helps.
WAN IP: 12
Nate Davis wrote:
Howdy,
pfSense has been a solid firewall for home use, and now I am
implementing it as a firewall at work. I have run into a snag, and
not really sure what the problem is. I am running 89.2
Here is my Setup:
WAN (AT&T-T1): 12.165.119.195
LAN: 192.168.40.1
I can use NA
Howdy,
pfSense has been a solid firewall for home use, and now I am
implementing it as a firewall at work. I have run into a snag, and
not really sure what the problem is. I am running 89.2
Here is my Setup:
WAN (AT&T-T1): 12.165.119.195
LAN: 192.168.40.1
I can use NAT, and Port Forwardi
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bill Marquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bastian Schern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:18:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual IPs not working
On 8/22/05, Bastian Schern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Okay I believe you,
IL PROTECTED]
> Action: failed
> Status: 4.0.0
> Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; delivery temporarily suspended: connect to
> kundt.homeip.net[213.191.40.68]: Connection timed out
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Bill Marquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 8/22/05, Bastian Schern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay I believe you, but what can I do to solve my Problem with my three
> LAN subnets: 192.168.0.0/24 (main), 192.168.3.0/24 and 192.168.101.0/24.
> All of them are located on the same physical interface and in this
> moment it is not possible
Fleming, John (ZeroChaos) schrieb:
Do you have a second machine directly connected to 213.x.x.67? If so try
to ping .67 and check the local arp table. If .67 shows up on the
machine that is trying to ping .67 then you have a firewall/nat/route
issue. If it doesn't show up then there is something
Chris Buechler schrieb:
[...]
It looks like the virtual IPs are not existing. If I try to ping e.g.
192.168.3.1 I get "Destination Host Unreachable".
From the firewall itself? I don't think that'll work (due to loopback
issues). If traffic passes in and out just fine, as intended, then
you'r
On 8/22/05, Bastian Schern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using pfSense Version 0.79.2 and my Virtual IPs are not functional.
> It's not possible to ping any Virtual Interface. Most important thing is
> to get the external IPs back to work. Because all of them should be
> forwarded to Webs
: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual IPs not working
Bastian Schern schrieb:
[...]
> The Virtual IPs on the WAN side should be forwarded to different LAN
Hosts.
>
I Already fixed the 1:1 NAT problem. I had to open the LAN Ports for WAN
and not the external WAN IP. ;-)
> The internal Virtual I
On 8/22/05, Bastian Schern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> --- snip ---
> # ifconfig rl1
> rl1: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> options=8
> inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
> inet6 fe80::2e0:7dff:fe98:5c60%rl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
> ether
et us/me know either way and we'll see what we can do.
-Original Message-
From: Bastian Schern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 2:00 PM
To: Scott Ullrich
Cc: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Virtual IPs not working
I already set up a 1:1 NAT
Bastian Schern schrieb:
[...]
The Virtual IPs on the WAN side should be forwarded to different LAN Hosts.
I Already fixed the 1:1 NAT problem. I had to open the LAN Ports for WAN
and not the external WAN IP. ;-)
The internal Virtual IPs should be pingable. The FW should handle 3
Private LAN
I already set up a 1:1 NAT:
--- snip ---
213.xxx.xxx.67
192.168.101.67
32
maja55
wan
You cannot ping proxy-arp'd ips unless there are 1:1 NAT setup.
Is this how your forwarding or using port forward?
Scott
On 8/22/05, Bastian Schern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm using pfSense Version 0.79.2 and my Virtual IPs are not functional.
>
> --- snip ---
>
>
Hi,
I'm using pfSense Version 0.79.2 and my Virtual IPs are not functional.
--- snip ---
proxyarp
wan
WAN Subnet
network
28
21
40 matches
Mail list logo
