On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 04:36:51PM +0100, Seth Mos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Op 20 nov 2011, om 16:33 heeft Eugen Leitl het volgende geschreven:
>
> > Great, I'll take the plunge, then. Thanks!
>
> Just for extra clarification, the images on
> http://files.pfsense.org/jimp/ipv6/ are the easiest to start
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:21:08AM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 04:36:51PM +0100, Seth Mos wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Op 20 nov 2011, om 16:33 heeft Eugen Leitl het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > > Great, I'll take the plunge, then. Thanks!
> >
> > Just for extra clarification,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:39:00AM +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> inet6 fe80::225:90ff:fe02:1a4e%em0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3
> inet6 2a01:4f8:7d:300:: prefixlen 56
>
> Anyone knows how disable IPv6 autoconfig in pfSense?
Sorry, I'm an idiot, disregard. Assigned the wrong IPv6
add
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> Hmm, I'm getting IPv6 autoconfig bullshit overriding my
> static configuration:
>
> inet6 fe80::225:90ff:fe02:1a4e%em0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3
> inet6 2a01:4f8:7d:300:: prefixlen 56
>
> Anyone knows how disable IPv6 autoconfig
On 11/23/2011 4:21 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Just upgraded to
> http://files.pfsense.org/jimp/ipv6/pfSense-Full-Update-2.1-DEVELOPMENT-i386-20111021-1243.tgz
> on a SuperMicro Atom -- system boots fine but I'm getting
> Crash report begins. Anonymous machine information:
[snip]
> Is this of any co
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:22:16AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 4:21 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > Just upgraded to
> > http://files.pfsense.org/jimp/ipv6/pfSense-Full-Update-2.1-DEVELOPMENT-i386-20111021-1243.tgz
> > on a SuperMicro Atom -- system boots fine but I'm getting
> > Crash rep
On 11/23/2011 10:36 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Thanks -- did that, and rebooted.
[snip]
> Crash report details:
>
Did you submit the report? If so, did it give you an error when it
submitted?
Jim
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:42:41AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 10:36 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > Thanks -- did that, and rebooted.
> [snip]
> > Crash report details:
> >
>
> Did you submit the report? If so, did it give you an error when it
> submitted?
Yes, submitted, and no error g
On 11/23/2011 10:45 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:42:41AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
>> On 11/23/2011 10:36 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>>> Thanks -- did that, and rebooted.
>> [snip]
>>> Crash report details:
>>>
>>
>> Did you submit the report? If so, did it give you an error when
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:52:45AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 10:45 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:42:41AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
> >> On 11/23/2011 10:36 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> >>> Thanks -- did that, and rebooted.
> >> [snip]
> >>> Crash report details:
>
On 11/23/2011 11:09 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> I did see something like that. Just repeated the
> above, and it seems the last sync did succeed:
>
> # pfSsh.php playback gitsync master
>
> Starting the pfSense shell system...
>
> ===> Checking out master
> ===> Fetching updates...
>
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:44:56AM -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 11:09 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > I did see something like that. Just repeated the
> > above, and it seems the last sync did succeed:
> >
> > # pfSsh.php playback gitsync master
> >
> > Starting the pfSense shell system.
Hi,
We're thinking about replacing our CheckPoint Firewall-1 by pfSense. We
are using only those features on Firewall-1 (R65):
- Security (default deny on everything)
- NAT (inbound (for internet-facing hosts) and outbound (selective,
workstations go out through a proxy, other selected hosts
On 11/22/2011 5:11 PM, Jim Pingle wrote:
On 11/22/2011 7:45 PM, Dave Warren wrote:
Is there any way to tell pfSense that these entries should represent
interface IPs rather than hardcoding specific IPs?
I don't recall if we reject the syntax in the GUI, but I believe relayd
supports using a hos
Good Afternoon,
I have an odd problem that I am hoping someone might be able to assist me with.
I have a pfSense 2 box with 2 NICs in it. WAN and LAN. The LAN has 3 subnets
on it 10.0.0.0/24, 10.0.1.0/24 and 10.0.4.0/24.
1. If I sit in 10.0.1.0 I can connect to an RDC server in the sa
> Hi,
>
> We're thinking about replacing our CheckPoint Firewall-1 by pfSense.
> We
> are using only those features on Firewall-1 (R65):
Based on your requirements, you'll be quite happy with PFSense.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Ugo Bellavance wrote:
> We're thinking about replacing our CheckPoint Firewall-1 by pfSense. We
> are using only those features on Firewall-1 (R65):
>
Concerns:
> 3- Backups. Are automated backups (of the config, at least) possible even
> w/o a service contrac
I have the SIP client in my Android 2.3 phone set up to register to my
local Askozia (Asterisk) PBX. The problem I'm having is that if I use
the FQDN of the PBX server, the SIP client only registers when I'm off
the network. In order to have the SIP client register successfully
when on the local ne
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Ron Lemon wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
>
>
> I have an odd problem that I am hoping someone might be able to assist me
> with. I have a pfSense 2 box with 2 NICs in it. WAN and LAN. The LAN has 3
> subnets on it 10.0.0.0/24, 10.0.1.0/24 and 10.0.4.0/24.
>
>
>
Bump... any ideas?
From: list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On
Behalf Of Daniel Davis
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 3:09 PM
To: 'pfSense support and discussion'
Subject: [pfSense] Multiple IPSEC Mutual PSK + Xauth Tunnels
We have a situation where all our i
> -Original Message-
> From: list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [mailto:list-
> boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On Behalf Of Ugo Bellavance
> Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 4:04 AM
> To: list@lists.pfsense.org
> Subject: [pfSense] Replacing CheckPoint Firewall-1 with pfSense
>
> Hi,
>
> We're
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Daniel Davis
wrote:
> We have a situation where all our iOS users connect via IPSEC VPN for remote
> access. This works great and is very stable. What we want to achieve however
> is for certain clients to have access only to certain networks (different
> sets of fi
22 matches
Mail list logo