Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little
12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but
that's apples to oranges.
On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote:
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?
