Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson

Let's get some facts straight:

False: "the board, case, SD all cost about $145 if you buy them from PCEngines."

PC Engines doesn't sell SD cards, so we'll leave those out of the discussion 
for now. 

List price on an APU from PC Engines:  $136 (2GB) or $155 (4GB)
List price on case from PC Engines: $9.30
List price on power supply from PC Engines: $4.50

Total:  $149.80 (2GB) or $168.80 (4GB) plus shipping and duties from 
Switzerland. 

Netgate price on 2GB APU kit (no storage): $179 ($29 markup vs DIY)
Netgate price on 4GB APU kit (no storage): $199 ($31 markup vs DIY)

Plus shipping from Texas. 

Netgate offer a fully-assembled, supported version of the APU for $299 (2GB) or 
$319 (4GB), these also include a 8GB SanDisk Extreme SDHC card (same can be 
added to the kits, above.)

Best"Google Shopping" price on a 8GB SanDisk Extreme SDHC card is $11.25, but 
you won't succeed in buying from him. Next best price is $12.   So $161 (2GB) 
or $181 (4GB), if you chose to DIY.   Remember, you'll still have to pay 
shipping from Switzerland and US import duties. (So do we, but we do a LOT more 
volume than you.)

Now, it actually does take time to program the SD card, assemble the unit, test 
it, source and track the raw parts, etc.  Getting the heat transfer material 
and spreader in the right place takes time and know-how.  Moreover, the 
transfer pad doesn't really permit "do-overs". Maybe you'll get it right the 
first time.  Maybe.  Getting it right the second time means a reduction in heat 
transfer. 

Further, the version of pfSense from the Netgate and pfSense stores has 
features which do not appear elsewhere.

Oh, and we laser engrave the cases. (Port marks only on the "kit")  

Finally, many people will not work very long for no pay, so the support (should 
you want/need it) does cost something to supply.   The people providing that 
support have forgotten more about pfSense than you'll ever know. 

In any case, as you and everyone else can plainly see, the markup is nowhere 
near $250, as you have emphatically and repeatedly stated. One must therefore 
conclude that you have an agenda. 

This is still extremely offensive:

> My fleecing comment is based on the lack of a statement that says if you 
> don’t want the support you can look at this model,

In any case, basic math skills will show that your claim of a $250 "fleecing" 
is egregiously wrong:

$319-$181 is $138. 
$299-$161 is also $138 (hmm!)

Remember you'll have to import from Switzerland, assemble the unit, and answer 
questions for a year, take returns, develop the software and have something 
left over to pay for the Christmas party out of that $138. 

Just to emphasize: Without the support and assembly, the markup .vs DIY is $30 
+/- $1.  

And here again, you've not paid to import from Switzerland, which are not costs 
you'll avoid.

I am left to conclude that you're either lying, or can't perform basic 
arithmetic. 

.

Now, about the list. 

I try to keep this list vendor free. Your actions negate that effort. 

Telling me what to do with my list, hosted by my company, about a project that 
I have supported from the very start with time and money, is a short path to 
the ban list.

Got it?

-- Jim

> On Jul 22, 2014, at 22:35, Ryan Coleman  wrote:
> 
> Actually the margin is more like $250 - the board, case, SD all cost about 
> $145 if you buy them from PCEngines.
> My fleecing comment is based on the lack of a statement that says if you 
> don’t want the support you can look at this model, or give an option to opt 
> out of the support. Also calling it simply APU4 implies that it is 3 versions 
> BETTER than their APU1C4 - it should be APU4-KIT or BUILT or something like 
> that to differentiate between them.
> 
> I love my Alix. The base parts is a good price. The extra cost without other 
> information is not a good business practice and is, indeed, trying to get 
> people to spend more money on something that they don’t have to (not saying 
> they shouldn’t) is bad.
> 
> I never ripped into him for that - he publicly told me to take it off the 
> list when he should have privately. In fact I thought the message WAS private 
> until my phone lit up with responses.
> I’ve been on mailing lists since 1996 and I’ve never been called out like 
> that publicly by a moderator without advance warning.
> 
> —
> ryan
> 
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 22:30, Walter Parker  wrote:
>> 
>> I see a few things going on here:
>> 
>> From the Netgate site, the difference between the APU1C and the APU1C4 DIY 
>> kits is 2GB vs 4GB. 
>> The Kits are $179 and $199 and include the board, a case and power plug.
>> 
>> The kit from PCEngines is just the board (I don't see any that says it comes 
>> with a plug or a case). The plugs on PCEngines are not in stock.
>> Some of the cases are out of stock.
>> 
>> Prior emails on this list have indicated that the older versions of the case 
>> (for the alix) didn't quite fit the APU and therefore had a ther

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman
Actually the margin is more like $250 - the board, case, SD all cost about $145 
if you buy them from PCEngines.
My fleecing comment is based on the lack of a statement that says if you don’t 
want the support you can look at this model, or give an option to opt out of 
the support. Also calling it simply APU4 implies that it is 3 versions BETTER 
than their APU1C4 - it should be APU4-KIT or BUILT or something like that to 
differentiate between them.

I love my Alix. The base parts is a good price. The extra cost without other 
information is not a good business practice and is, indeed, trying to get 
people to spend more money on something that they don’t have to (not saying 
they shouldn’t) is bad.

I never ripped into him for that - he publicly told me to take it off the list 
when he should have privately. In fact I thought the message WAS private until 
my phone lit up with responses.
I’ve been on mailing lists since 1996 and I’ve never been called out like that 
publicly by a moderator without advance warning.

—
ryan


On Jul 22, 2014, at 22:30, Walter Parker  wrote:

> I see a few things going on here:
> 
> From the Netgate site, the difference between the APU1C and the APU1C4 DIY 
> kits is 2GB vs 4GB. 
> The Kits are $179 and $199 and include the board, a case and power plug.
> 
> The kit from PCEngines is just the board (I don't see any that says it comes 
> with a plug or a case). The plugs on PCEngines are not in stock.
> Some of the cases are out of stock.
> 
> Prior emails on this list have indicated that the older versions of the case 
> (for the alix) didn't quite fit the APU and therefore had a thermial problem 
> due to poor contact. The Netgate cases are the new style that doesn't have 
> the problem.
> 
> The assembled systems from Netgate are $299, which means the price breakdown 
> is:
> $179 for the Board, case and plug (PC Engines price for all of this is $150 
> if you order more than 500 units)
> $22 for the flash card
> $99 One year of pfSense support 
> 
> That leaves Netgate with a whole $6 over the price of the DIY kit (which was 
> <$30 more than PC Engines, but to get PC Engine's price, you have to buy 
> $75,000 worth of hardware).
> 
> 
> I bought my Alix from netgate and it was a good price. This new item is a 
> good price. You are unlikely to find the hardware for less money once you 
> include the $99 add on from pfSense support.
> 
> I did find Ryan's initial email to be a bit rude. What is it with people that 
> assume that because a company wants to make a profit that they are fleecing 
> people? The $6 margin on a $299 product hardly seem like a rip off (my time 
> is worth a lot more than that).
> 
> And you get a tested system with a warranty. 
> 
> Look at the prices for the Intel systems, they tend to run double once you 
> include all the features.
> 
> 
> And have some class, Jim is one of the good guys, doing great work with 
> Netgate and pfSense. Ripping on him because he asked that sales types 
> questions for a vendor product be sent to the vendor is not a bad request 
> (the pfSense vendors do read this list). 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jim Thompson  wrote:
> 
> I am.  I have.
> 
> I'm trying to be patient and professional.
> 
> > On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:47, Sean Colins  wrote:
> >
> > Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this?
> >
> >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman  wrote:
> >>
> >> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.
> >>>
> >>> Please stay on topic.
> >>>
> >>> -- Jim
> >>>
> > On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall  
> > wrote:
> >
> > On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
> > I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal 
> > paste
> > allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge 
> > and
> > the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
> > the case?
> 
>  The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal 
>  pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both 
>  the chips and the base of the chassis.
> 
>  It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is 
>  about 22C at this time of year.
> 
> > Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
> > place by 'screws and hex nuts'?
> 
>  4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not 
>  particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.
> 
> > What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
> > presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
> > outside, after the installation?
> 
>  There is a SIM card tray, and like the S

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Walter Parker
I see a few things going on here:

>From the Netgate site, the difference between the APU1C and the APU1C4 DIY
kits is 2GB vs 4GB.
The Kits are $179 and $199 and include the board, a case and power plug.

The kit from PCEngines is just the board (I don't see any that says it
comes with a plug or a case). The plugs on PCEngines are not in stock.
Some of the cases are out of stock.

Prior emails on this list have indicated that the older versions of the
case (for the alix) didn't quite fit the APU and therefore had a thermial
problem due to poor contact. The Netgate cases are the new style that
doesn't have the problem.

The assembled systems from Netgate are $299, which means the price
breakdown is:
$179 for the Board, case and plug (PC Engines price for all of this is $150
if you order more than 500 units)
$22 for the flash card
$99 One year of pfSense support

That leaves Netgate with a whole $6 over the price of the DIY kit (which
was <$30 more than PC Engines, but to get PC Engine's price, you have to
buy $75,000 worth of hardware).


I bought my Alix from netgate and it was a good price. This new item is a
good price. You are unlikely to find the hardware for less money once you
include the $99 add on from pfSense support.

I did find Ryan's initial email to be a bit rude. What is it with people
that assume that because a company wants to make a profit that they are
fleecing people? The $6 margin on a $299 product hardly seem like a rip off
(my time is worth a lot more than that).

And you get a tested system with a warranty.

Look at the prices for the Intel systems, they tend to run double once you
include all the features.


And have some class, Jim is one of the good guys, doing great work with
Netgate and pfSense. Ripping on him because he asked that sales types
questions for a vendor product be sent to the vendor is not a bad request
(the pfSense vendors do read this list).




On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jim Thompson  wrote:

>
> I am.  I have.
>
> I'm trying to be patient and professional.
>
> > On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:47, Sean Colins  wrote:
> >
> > Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this?
> >
> >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman  wrote:
> >>
> >> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.
> >>>
> >>> Please stay on topic.
> >>>
> >>> -- Jim
> >>>
> > On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall 
> wrote:
> >
> > On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
> > I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of
> thermal paste
> > allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south
> bridge and
> > the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact
> with
> > the case?
> 
>  The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky'
> thermal pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to
> both the chips and the base of the chassis.
> 
>  It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature
> is about 22C at this time of year.
> 
> > Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it
> held in
> > place by 'screws and hex nuts'?
> 
>  4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis,
> not particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.
> 
> > What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
> > presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible
> from
> > outside, after the installation?
> 
>  There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not
> accessible externally after installation.
> 
>  (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot
> for anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in
> conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion)
> 
>  Kind regards,
> 
>  Chris
>  --
>  This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
>  ___
>  List mailing list
>  List@lists.pfsense.org
> 
> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIe6zqb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CQjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYr3d8KpF1D
> >>> ___
> >>> List mailing list
> >>> List@lists.pfsense.org
> >>>
> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS921J5yXBNMUQsII6XCNOqr0VVBYSejjod7bMUsr79FI3DCn3oVdd-ZT7ztfS0aJmfyPsH5undSH7NpKlyLbC_YxtSPb_nVN4sCVtXHTbFECzB_zhOesd7dQkumKzp55mXbfaxVZicHs3jqpJATvAn3hOYyyODtUTsSjDdqymovaAWsIXjUk_w0e2qKMM-l9OwXn3VkCrfBipsxlK5LE2zVkDjBDqv2DY01dLKnodwLQzh0qmRDhzUkYQKCy0eAWXYvxrPh0g-

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman
Sorry, that was at our wonderful list mom. I should have noted it that way.
On Jul 22, 2014, at 22:18, Chris Bagnall  wrote:

> On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a 
>> public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should 
>> have sent it privately instead of publicly.
> 
> I can't work out if the above is directed at me or Jim.
> 
> (I certainly don't have any intention of being anyone's mum)
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Blake Cornell
It is my believe that we all are on this list, in this discussion,
because we have a requirement, desire and/or need of a solid network
security solution. I applaud the community as a whole for making pfSense
a product for that is available for the societal masses. #respect

"Give me your low TTL, your latent, your packets en mass yearning to be
delivered freely fore pfSense shall protect us all."

We all have bad days, none of us always use the most proper words. There
is no use for us to be divided, we are stronger together. Lest we all
put this quarrel to rest and move forward, forge ahead without complication.

We all deserve a congratulation, especially not me, for furthering a
unified vision that WE ALL have.

-- 
Blake Cornell
CTO, Integris Security LLC
501 Franklin Ave, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530 USA
http://www.integrissecurity.com/
O: +1(516)750-0478
M: +1(516)900-2193
PGP: CF42 5262 AE68 4AC7 591B 2C5B C34C 7FAB 4660 F572
Free Tools: https://www.integrissecurity.com/SecurityTools
Follow us on Twitter: @integrissec

On 07/22/2014 11:18 PM, Chris Bagnall wrote:
> On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made
>> it a public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it
>> you should have sent it privately instead of publicly.
>
> I can't work out if the above is directed at me or Jim.
>
> (I certainly don't have any intention of being anyone's mum)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Chris

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Chris Bagnall

On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote:

I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a 
public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have 
sent it privately instead of publicly.


I can't work out if the above is directed at me or Jim.

(I certainly don't have any intention of being anyone's mum)

Kind regards,

Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman
::applause::

I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a 
public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have 
sent it privately instead of publicly.

—
Ryan


On Jul 22, 2014, at 21:15, Chris Bagnall  wrote:

> On 23/7/14 2:10 am, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.
>> Please stay on topic.
> 
> Respectfully, I disagree.
> 
> Given the APU is - as the de facto successor to the ALIX - likely to be a 
> piece of hardware used in a lot of new pfSense installs, discussion about its 
> merits and drawbacks (in a pfSense context) strikes me as being *entirely* on 
> topic.
> 
> Certainly if heat dissipation is going to be a concern with this unit in 
> long-term deployments, and given the 24/7/365 nature of firewalls, that's 
> very relevant to pfSense and something for which we as a community need to be 
> finding solutions.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman
Neither do accusations that a discussion that is VERY MUCH related to this list 
has no place on this list.

Just because it does not relate to what YOU use pfsense for doesn’t mean it 
does not belong. If that were the case most of the emails I get on a daily 
basis have no place on this list.

Think of the others here instead of yourself, please.


On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:23, Jim Thompson  wrote:

> Ryan,
> 
> Profanity and personal attacks have no place on this list. 
> 
> -- Jim
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:12, Ryan Coleman  wrote:
>> 
>> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.  
>>> 
>>> Please stay on topic. 
>>> 
>>> -- Jim
>>> 
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall  
> wrote:
> 
> On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
> I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal 
> paste
> allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
> the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
> the case?
 
 The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal 
 pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the 
 chips and the base of the chassis.
 
 It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is 
 about 22C at this time of year.
 
> Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
> place by 'screws and hex nuts'?
 
 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not 
 particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.
 
> What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
> presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
> outside, after the installation?
 
 There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not 
 accessible externally after installation.
 
 (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for 
 anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in 
 conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion)
 
 Kind regards,
 
 Chris
 -- 
 This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
 ___
 List mailing list
 List@lists.pfsense.org
 https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>>> ___
>>> List mailing list
>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>> ___
>> List mailing list
>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson

I am.  I have. 

I'm trying to be patient and professional. 

> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:47, Sean Colins  wrote:
> 
> Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this?
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman  wrote:
>> 
>> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.  
>>> 
>>> Please stay on topic. 
>>> 
>>> -- Jim
>>> 
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall  
> wrote:
> 
> On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
> I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal 
> paste
> allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
> the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
> the case?
 
 The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal 
 pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the 
 chips and the base of the chassis.
 
 It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is 
 about 22C at this time of year.
 
> Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
> place by 'screws and hex nuts'?
 
 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not 
 particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.
 
> What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
> presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
> outside, after the installation?
 
 There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not 
 accessible externally after installation.
 
 (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for 
 anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in 
 conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion)
 
 Kind regards,
 
 Chris
 -- 
 This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
 ___
 List mailing list
 List@lists.pfsense.org
 http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIe6zqb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CQjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYr3d8KpF1D
>>> ___
>>> List mailing list
>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS921J5yXBNMUQsII6XCNOqr0VVBYSejjod7bMUsr79FI3DCn3oVdd-ZT7ztfS0aJmfyPsH5undSH7NpKlyLbC_YxtSPb_nVN4sCVtXHTbFECzB_zhOesd7dQkumKzp55mXbfaxVZicHs3jqpJATvAn3hOYyyODtUTsSjDdqymovaAWsIXjUk_w0e2qKMM-l9OwXn3VkCrfBipsxlK5LE2zVkDjBDqv2DY01dLKnodwLQzh0qmRDhzUkYQKCy0eAWXYvxrPh0g-pz_wq810b1dwQgr10Qg20m2q8AMroudVHDmk1gq
>> ___
>> List mailing list
>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN0q43qb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CSjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYriex-wjKS
> 
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson

On Jul 22, 2014, at 16:30, Nickolai Leschov  wrote:

>> Bay Trail?  Why?  That's for tablets. 
> What's the difference, in practical terms? 

First: Rangeley has an integrated i354 10/100/1000 quad Ethernet MAC.  Bay 
Trail requires one to add Ethernet

Second:  Rangeley has a high-speed crypto co-processor (Quick Assist)

Third: the lowest end Rangeley has twice the cache of the low-end Bay Trail.  
Similarly, the highest end Rangeley has twice the cache of the highest end Bay 
Trail

Fourth: Bay Trail is a max quad core part, Rangeley is max 8-core (C27x8). 

Fifth: Bay Trail maxes out at 1.5GHz, Rangeley at 2.4GHz. (Both non-turbo)

Is that enough, or shall I continue?

Jim___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Chris Bagnall

On 23/7/14 2:10 am, Jim Thompson wrote:

Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.
Please stay on topic.


Respectfully, I disagree.

Given the APU is - as the de facto successor to the ALIX - likely to be 
a piece of hardware used in a lot of new pfSense installs, discussion 
about its merits and drawbacks (in a pfSense context) strikes me as 
being *entirely* on topic.


Certainly if heat dissipation is going to be a concern with this unit in 
long-term deployments, and given the 24/7/365 nature of firewalls, 
that's very relevant to pfSense and something for which we as a 
community need to be finding solutions.


Kind regards,

Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Sean Colins
Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this?

On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman  wrote:

> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson  wrote:
>> 
>> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.  
>> 
>> Please stay on topic. 
>> 
>> -- Jim
>> 
 On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall  wrote:
 
 On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
 I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
 allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
 the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
 the case?
>>> 
>>> The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal 
>>> pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the 
>>> chips and the base of the chassis.
>>> 
>>> It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is 
>>> about 22C at this time of year.
>>> 
 Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
 place by 'screws and hex nuts'?
>>> 
>>> 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not 
>>> particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.
>>> 
 What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
 presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
 outside, after the installation?
>>> 
>>> There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not 
>>> accessible externally after installation.
>>> 
>>> (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for 
>>> anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in 
>>> conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion)
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Chris
>>> -- 
>>> This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
>>> ___
>>> List mailing list
>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/1jWVIe6zqb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CQjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYr3d8KpF1D
>> ___
>> List mailing list
>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/FZsS921J5yXBNMUQsII6XCNOqr0VVBYSejjod7bMUsr79FI3DCn3oVdd-ZT7ztfS0aJmfyPsH5undSH7NpKlyLbC_YxtSPb_nVN4sCVtXHTbFECzB_zhOesd7dQkumKzp55mXbfaxVZicHs3jqpJATvAn3hOYyyODtUTsSjDdqymovaAWsIXjUk_w0e2qKMM-l9OwXn3VkCrfBipsxlK5LE2zVkDjBDqv2DY01dLKnodwLQzh0qmRDhzUkYQKCy0eAWXYvxrPh0g-pz_wq810b1dwQgr10Qg20m2q8AMroudVHDmk1gq
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCN0q43qb5TbzxNEVpodTdzAQS1PPbVIsCCMqenxMUSejjo7fcK6NOqrZXKf6WvI0lqIv5CVmaYKrJmfyPsH5und_V2XJCn-LPy8VdOXTnKnjhd7b_6zAsUqerEEYJt6OaaJSmul3PWApmU6CSjr9K_8K6zBV55BeXNKVIDeqR4IM-l9QVpSDMF_00s4RtxxYGjB1SK7OFcSvaAOV2Hsbvg57OFeDbeQ-5fU02rvsKMr1vF6y0QJHez7MFVFtd40t9RTU_2TCy0xYP7_0Qg20m2r1EwS21Ew40I4Qh9wSMYriex-wjKS

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson
Ryan,

Profanity and personal attacks have no place on this list. 

-- Jim

> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:12, Ryan Coleman  wrote:
> 
> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson  wrote:
>> 
>> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.  
>> 
>> Please stay on topic. 
>> 
>> -- Jim
>> 
 On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall  wrote:
 
 On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
 I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
 allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
 the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
 the case?
>>> 
>>> The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal 
>>> pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the 
>>> chips and the base of the chassis.
>>> 
>>> It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is 
>>> about 22C at this time of year.
>>> 
 Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
 place by 'screws and hex nuts'?
>>> 
>>> 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not 
>>> particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.
>>> 
 What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
 presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
 outside, after the installation?
>>> 
>>> There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not 
>>> accessible externally after installation.
>>> 
>>> (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for 
>>> anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in 
>>> conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion)
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Chris
>>> -- 
>>> This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
>>> ___
>>> List mailing list
>>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>> ___
>> List mailing list
>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman
Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you. 


> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson  wrote:
> 
> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.  
> 
> Please stay on topic. 
> 
> -- Jim
> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
>>> I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
>>> allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
>>> the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
>>> the case?
>> 
>> The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads 
>> on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips 
>> and the base of the chassis.
>> 
>> It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 
>> 22C at this time of year.
>> 
>>> Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
>>> place by 'screws and hex nuts'?
>> 
>> 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not 
>> particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.
>> 
>>> What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
>>> presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
>>> outside, after the installation?
>> 
>> There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible 
>> externally after installation.
>> 
>> (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for 
>> anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in 
>> conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion)
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Chris
>> -- 
>> This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
>> ___
>> List mailing list
>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson
Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.  

Please stay on topic. 

-- Jim

> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall  wrote:
> 
>> On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
>> I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
>> allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
>> the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
>> the case?
> 
> The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal pads 
> on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both the chips 
> and the base of the chassis.
> 
> It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is about 
> 22C at this time of year.
> 
>> Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
>> place by 'screws and hex nuts'?
> 
> 4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not 
> particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.
> 
>> What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
>> presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
>> outside, after the installation?
> 
> There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not accessible 
> externally after installation.
> 
> (as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for 
> anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in 
> conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion)
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Chris Bagnall

On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:

I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
the case?


The one I've just installed here in my home office has 'sticky' thermal 
pads on both sides of the aluminium heat spreader, and sticks to both 
the chips and the base of the chassis.


It gets warm in use, but not uncomfortably hot. Ambient temperature is 
about 22C at this time of year.



Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
place by 'screws and hex nuts'?


4 screws in the corners which go into binding posts on the chassis, not 
particularly dissimilar from most PC motherboards into cases.



What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
outside, after the installation?


There is a SIM card tray, and like the SD card slot, no, it's not 
accessible externally after installation.


(as a matter of curiosity, does pfSense support this SIM card slot for 
anything 'interesting'? - one presumes it would need to be used in 
conjunction with a miniPCIe radio card of some persuasion)


Kind regards,

Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] pfsense fw blocking internal requests

2014-07-22 Thread Khurram Khan
protocol in the rule is any. here's what the rule looks like:

Action:Pass
Interface: LAN
TCP/IP: IPv4
protocol: any
source: Type: network, address: 192.168.0.0/24
destination: any





On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Justin Edmands wrote:

> It's most likely your specified Protocol in the "allow" rule you have
> set. Open the rule that you believe should allow the traffic and
> change the rule from TCP, UDP, TCP/UDP to say any.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Khurram Khan  wrote:
>> Hi Team,
>> 
>> Trying to figure out an issue i'm facing with pfsense 2.1.4. I'm routing 
>> 192.168.0.0/24 via pfsense. this block resides on a linux machine. within 
>> the internal LAB if i ping to 192.168.0.5 , all the machines on the LAN can 
>> ping successfully. However, if i ping from the linux machine , sourcing from 
>> 192.168.0.5, to the pfsense LAN IP , my pings fail. i've got a firewall rule 
>> on the pfsense firewall allowing anything from 192.168.0.0/24 to anything.
>> 
>> here's what the topology looks like:
>> 
>> 
>> internet <> rl1 <> pfsense <> rl0 <> LAN
>> 
>> LAN subnet (rl0) : 10.10.171.0/24
>> 
>> here are the routes on the pfsense appliance:
>> 
>> [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(1): netstat -rn | grep 192.168.
>> 192.168.0.0/24 10.10.171.80   UGS 0  161rl0
>> 
>> and here's the rl0 interface:
>> 
>> [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(4): ifconfig rl0 | grep inet | grep 
>> -v inet6
>>inet 10.10.171.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.10.171.255
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> the LAN subnet is : 10.10.171.0/24
>> the server that 192.168.0.0/24 resides on is : 10.10.171.80
>> 
>> 
>> when trying to initiate the ping from 10.10.171.80, sourcing 192.168.0.5 and 
>> destined for 10.10.171.1 (rl0), pings fail and here is what i see in the 
>> logs:
>> 
>> 
>> Jul 22 15:27:53 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.60 rule 
>> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22636, offset 0, flags 
>> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>> Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
>> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags 
>> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>> Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
>> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags 
>> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>> Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
>> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags 
>> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>> Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
>> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags 
>> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>> Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
>> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags 
>> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>> Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
>> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags 
>> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>> Jul 22 15:27:56 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.02 rule 
>> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22642, offset 0, flags 
>> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>> 
>> 
>> the fact that the firewall rule is there on the LAN interface , permitting 
>> anything from 192.168/24 , plus not blocking any bogons or private addresses 
>> on this interface, i'm scratching my head.
>> if someone has any ideas, would really appreciate it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> List mailing list
>> List@lists.pfsense.org
>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Nickolai Leschov
Thanks, Holger!

I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
the case? I find it less than adequate, but let's hope that it works. Looks
like I could manage to assemble that.

Now, how is the board held in place, inside the enclosure? Is it held in
place by 'screws and hex nuts'?

What is the thing in the second-to-last picture near the thumb of the
presenter's right hand: is it the SIM card tray? Is it accessible from
outside, after the installation?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] pfsense fw blocking internal requests

2014-07-22 Thread Justin Edmands
It's most likely your specified Protocol in the "allow" rule you have
set. Open the rule that you believe should allow the traffic and
change the rule from TCP, UDP, TCP/UDP to say any.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Khurram Khan  wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Trying to figure out an issue i'm facing with pfsense 2.1.4. I'm routing 
> 192.168.0.0/24 via pfsense. this block resides on a linux machine. within the 
> internal LAB if i ping to 192.168.0.5 , all the machines on the LAN can ping 
> successfully. However, if i ping from the linux machine , sourcing from 
> 192.168.0.5, to the pfsense LAN IP , my pings fail. i've got a firewall rule 
> on the pfsense firewall allowing anything from 192.168.0.0/24 to anything.
>
> here's what the topology looks like:
>
>
> internet <> rl1 <> pfsense <> rl0 <> LAN
>
> LAN subnet (rl0) : 10.10.171.0/24
>
> here are the routes on the pfsense appliance:
>
> [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(1): netstat -rn | grep 192.168.
> 192.168.0.0/24 10.10.171.80   UGS 0  161rl0
>
> and here's the rl0 interface:
>
> [2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(4): ifconfig rl0 | grep inet | grep 
> -v inet6
> inet 10.10.171.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.10.171.255
>
>
>
> the LAN subnet is : 10.10.171.0/24
> the server that 192.168.0.0/24 resides on is : 10.10.171.80
>
>
> when trying to initiate the ping from 10.10.171.80, sourcing 192.168.0.5 and 
> destined for 10.10.171.1 (rl0), pings fail and here is what i see in the logs:
>
>
> Jul 22 15:27:53 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.60 rule 
> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22636, offset 0, flags 
> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags 
> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags 
> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags 
> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags 
> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags 
> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags 
> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
> Jul 22 15:27:56 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.02 rule 
> 3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22642, offset 0, flags 
> [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84)
>
>
> the fact that the firewall rule is there on the LAN interface , permitting 
> anything from 192.168/24 , plus not blocking any bogons or private addresses 
> on this interface, i'm scratching my head.
> if someone has any ideas, would really appreciate it.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Holger Bauer
http://pcengines.ch/apucool.htm

Holger
Am 22.07.2014 23:31 schrieb "Nickolai Leschov" :

> Yes, there is a transfer "pad".
>
> What is this pad made of: some metal or is this a thermal shim, which is a
> sort of paste?
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
>
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Nickolai Leschov
>
> Yes, there is a transfer "pad".

What is this pad made of: some metal or is this a thermal shim, which is a
sort of paste?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

[pfSense] pfsense fw blocking internal requests

2014-07-22 Thread Khurram Khan
Hi Team,

Trying to figure out an issue i'm facing with pfsense 2.1.4. I'm routing 
192.168.0.0/24 via pfsense. this block resides on a linux machine. within the 
internal LAB if i ping to 192.168.0.5 , all the machines on the LAN can ping 
successfully. However, if i ping from the linux machine , sourcing from 
192.168.0.5, to the pfsense LAN IP , my pings fail. i've got a firewall rule on 
the pfsense firewall allowing anything from 192.168.0.0/24 to anything. 

here's what the topology looks like:


internet <> rl1 <> pfsense <> rl0 <> LAN 

LAN subnet (rl0) : 10.10.171.0/24

here are the routes on the pfsense appliance:

[2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(1): netstat -rn | grep 192.168.
192.168.0.0/24 10.10.171.80   UGS 0  161rl0

and here's the rl0 interface:

[2.1.4-RELEASE][ad...@pfw01.b.lan]/root(4): ifconfig rl0 | grep inet | grep -v 
inet6
inet 10.10.171.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.10.171.255



the LAN subnet is : 10.10.171.0/24
the server that 192.168.0.0/24 resides on is : 10.10.171.80


when trying to initiate the ping from 10.10.171.80, sourcing 192.168.0.5 and 
destined for 10.10.171.1 (rl0), pings fail and here is what i see in the logs:


Jul 22 15:27:53 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.60 rule 
3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22636, offset 0, flags [DF], 
proto ICMP (1), length 84)
Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], 
proto ICMP (1), length 84)
Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], 
proto ICMP (1), length 84)
Jul 22 15:27:54 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:00.84 rule 
3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22638, offset 0, flags [DF], 
proto ICMP (1), length 84)
Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], 
proto ICMP (1), length 84)
Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], 
proto ICMP (1), length 84)
Jul 22 15:27:55 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.45 rule 
3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22640, offset 0, flags [DF], 
proto ICMP (1), length 84)
Jul 22 15:27:56 pfw01.rl0.171.10.10.in-addr.arpa pf: 00:00:01.02 rule 
3/0(match): block in on rl0: (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 22642, offset 0, flags [DF], 
proto ICMP (1), length 84)


the fact that the firewall rule is there on the LAN interface , permitting 
anything from 192.168/24 , plus not blocking any bogons or private addresses on 
this interface, i'm scratching my head. 
if someone has any ideas, would really appreciate it. 





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Nickolai Leschov
>
> Bay Trail?  Why?  That's for tablets.

What's the difference, in practical terms?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman
Do you happen to have an image of this?


> On Jul 22, 2014, at 16:28, Jim Thompson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov  wrote:
> 
>>> Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case
>> How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal 
>> interface involved? Maybe an interface between CPU heatsink and aluminum 
>> case?
> 
> Yes, there is a transfer "pad". 
> 
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson


On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov  wrote:

>> Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case
> How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal 
> interface involved? Maybe an interface between CPU heatsink and aluminum case?

Yes, there is a transfer "pad". 

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson


> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov  wrote:
> 
> I wonder why they wouldn't just build the board with some appropriate Atom 
> CPU?

:-)

> And maybe even more performant, to boot? E3815, probably?

Bay Trail?  Why?  That's for tablets. 

C2xx8 more likely.  IJS...___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Nickolai Leschov
>
> Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case

How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal
interface involved? Maybe an interface between CPU heatsink and aluminum
case?

Mine get toasty but they haven't cooked yet. You could cut a fan in the
> case if you needed to.

That bothers me quite a bit, but what can you do? I would appreciate it if
the manufacturer had the wisdom to leave some margin in the design of the
device, thermal performance-wise.

You could cut a fan in the case if you needed to.

For a person like me, with a history of choosing computer hardware on the
basis of its potential to run without extra active cooling, and redesigning
computers to minimize the demand for active cooling - that's a blasphemy.
(a single low-speed PSU fan with huge CPU heatsink should be enough for
cooling a desktop; completely fanless is a bit too much by my judgement -
fried one PC that way)
The fact that this could be necessary, or advisable, annoys me greatly, to
put it mildly.
There's simply not enough possibilities out there to choose a proper silent
fan in such tight space constraints. Also, the possibility of degradation
of fan's sound profile (all fans become noisier when they age), performance
or outright failure, the difficulty of cutting the case properly and all
the possible complications that could come with it - are the issues I would
gladly sidestep entirely.

I wonder why they wouldn't just build the board with some appropriate Atom
CPU? Shouldn't that be more power-efficient? And maybe even
more performant, to boot? E3815 ,
probably? Though it's not clear whether its 6W TDP would be noticeably
better in practice than AMD's 6.4W
, but isn't
it kinda the manufacturer's job to ensure that the product won't croak with
the stock cooling?!
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman
Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case. Mine get toasty 
but they haven't cooked yet. You could cut a fan in the case if you needed to. 


> On Jul 22, 2014, at 14:29, Nickolai Leschov  wrote:
> 
> The difference is not $200, but about $100 with 8GB Sandisk Extreme Secure 
> [sic!] SDHC card included.
> 
> 1. What's secure about this card? I suppose it's a regular SDHC one.
> 
> 2. I would like to pay less, but I'm worried about assembling it right with 
> regards to cooling. Can anyone clarify how is cooling achieved in this unit?
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Nickolai Leschov
The difference is not $200, but about $100 with 8GB Sandisk Extreme Secure
[sic!] SDHC card included.

1. What's *secure* about this card? I suppose it's a regular SDHC one.

2. I would like to pay less, but I'm worried about assembling it right with
regards to cooling. Can anyone clarify how is cooling achieved in this unit?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson


> On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:58, Ryan Coleman  wrote:
> 
> I asked the differences in the two line items from netgate. 

Perhaps you should ask sa...@netgate.com

Jim
 
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Jim Thompson

> On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:56, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to 
>> fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built 
>> and tested?
>> http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
>> http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx
>> 
>> PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the same specs as the 
>> purported APU4 at NetGate:http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm
> 
> If you're technical, and do your own support you should
> buy from PC Engines. 
> 
> If you're nontechnical and need an assembled device with
> support and/or want to support pfSense development, you
> should buy from Netgate.

If you wish to support the pfSense project, and gave not otherwise contributed 
(patches, forum answers, pfSense Gold, wiki edits, etc) you can consider 
purchasing from the pfSense store. 

Obviously(?) I strenuously object to the term "fleeced" as used by OP. 

Jim
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman
I asked the differences in the two line items from netgate. 


> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:56, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to 
>> fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built 
>> and tested?
>> http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
>> http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx
>> 
>> PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the same specs as the 
>> purported APU4 at NetGate:http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm
> 
> If you're technical, and do your own support you should
> buy from PC Engines. 
> 
> If you're nontechnical and need an assembled device with
> support and/or want to support pfSense development, you
> should buy from Netgate.
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Nenhum_de_Nos

On 2014-07-22 11:40, Ryan Coleman wrote:

Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying 
to fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing 
together built and tested?

http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx

PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the same specs as the 
purported APU4 at NetGate:http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm


Thanks!



Did you read the whole pages ?

see, one has all done by them:

One year Netgate Support [2] included with this system.

Has storage.

the other is a DIY product:

 DOES NOT INCLUDE:

* SOFTWARE. Load your preferred OS and application.
* STORAGE MEDIA. Add SD or mSATA above.
* Cat 5 ethernet cables to connect to your network.
* Support.


its a question of what kind of product you want.

matheus

--
We will call you Cygnus,
The God of balance you shall be

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote:
> Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to 
> fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built 
> and tested?
> http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
> http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx
> 
> PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the same specs as the 
> purported APU4 at NetGate:http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm

If you're technical, and do your own support you should
buy from PC Engines. 

If you're nontechnical and need an assembled device with
support and/or want to support pfSense development, you
should buy from Netgate.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


[pfSense] Difference between APU4 and APU1C4

2014-07-22 Thread Ryan Coleman

Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to 
fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built 
and tested?
http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx

PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the same specs as the 
purported APU4 at NetGate:http://www.pcengines.ch/apu.htm

Thanks!
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list