Re: There is nothing in your config that requires AON, ...
---
You're correct. It was "historical*" and I've now
reduced/fixed/tested/deployed the config:
Now: http://www.derman.com/Misc/router/pfSenseReduced.html
Previously: http://www.derman.com/Misc/router/pfSense.html
However, if one _was_ using AON, are the NAT rules applied in the
top-to-bottom order they are listed via Firewall -> NAT -> Outbound?
Also, note that even with the reduced/auto-NAT configuration, the issues
I described in my posting "Loss of webConfigurator access when disabling
WANs"/2008-07-24 are still present and can be reliably replicated (at
least with my 2 systems).
---
*historical: meaning that, at some point, I thought it was necessary for
some configuration I have or had -- likely through some lack of
understanding on my part
______________________________________________________________________
Previous message from Chris Buechler on 2008-07-24 at 11:28 AM -0400
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:27 AM, B Derman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> QUESTION:
|> I've always assumed that Manual Outbound NAT rules are applied in the
|> top-to-bottom order they are listed via Firewall -> NAT -> Outbound but,
|> given some of the strange routing behaviors I get when I turn off some of
|> the WANs, I'm wondering whether that's a valid assumption ... is it/are
|> they?
|
|Why are you using AON? There is nothing in your config that requires
|AON, so no need to add complexity by forcing its configuration.
--
-----------------------------------------------
Bryan Derman Derman Enterprises Incorporated
http://www.derman.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
