On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:

> Sure Tim.
>
> 192.168.1.10/32 Manual/Static
> If you PC's and phones are on DHCP and the DHCP range is definable...
>
> 192.168.1.129-254 (dhcp range), then do 192.168.1.128/25 "automatic"
> and thusly
> 192.168.1.0/25 manual (split the difference)
>
> I think you get the general idea though.
>

Thanks again Tony, I think I'm on the right track. However, I believe that I
may be misinterpreting what you mean by "automatic" and "manual". When I
think of automatic and manual, I'm thinking of "Automatic outbound NAT rule
generation (IPsec passthrough included)" and "Manual Outbound NAT rule
generation (AON - Advanced Outbound NAT)". I think this is the cause of my
confusion. When you refer to "automatic" and "manual", are you referring to
Static Port set to "No" and "Yes", respectively?

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Michael Scheidell wrote:

> other issue (and, Tony, weigh in on this).. pfsense 2.0 is NOT ready for
> prime time.. I think the QOS, is broken, right?
> I did try it last month.
> but, the layer7 filtering would be a plus (would stop those sipvicious
> attacks)


Thanks for the feedback. I took a look at the issue tracker last week and
there appears to be a few big issues left. For example, I saw one apparently
major layer7 issue that's been open for about a year. It doesn't appear that
much progress has been made at resolving this issue and I'm wondering if
they're really going to be able to implement this in the 2.0 final (I hope
they do, as this is a pretty big new feature in 2.0).

I'm not planning on using any layer7 filtering or QoS at this time. For the
time being, only my sipXecs box and phones are using the pfSense box as a
gateway and I have no other traffic on this line. In any case, I may drop
back to 1.2.3, but I wanted to see what 2.0 RC1 had to offer first. If I'm
not mistaken, everything Tony has mentioned should apply to both 1.2.3 and
2.0.
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

Reply via email to