Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable those functions.
You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal of value in most implementations. > -----Original Message----- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs???? > > I see. > > Very interesting. > > But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. > I would have to just use it as an AP right? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com > [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs???? > > pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded > features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to > smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less > quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar interface and > either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- > > boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar > > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM > > To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com > > Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs???? > > > > What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? > > > > > >
