yes, there are reasons and it must be encrypted.
thanks,
-phil
On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:11 PM, Gary Buckmaster wrote:
Is there a particular reason you need this traffic to be
encapsulated? At first blush, this would seem to be a pretty
standard routing problem, easily solvable with static
Is there a particular reason you need this traffic to be encapsulated?
At first blush, this would seem to be a pretty standard routing problem,
easily solvable with static routes. Unless there's some very specific
reason for needing the encryption.
-Gary
BSD Wiz wrote:
it's on my corporate
it's on my corporate network, both wan interfaces of the pfsense box
are on the same private ip subnet. we built 2 labs using pfsense and
now we want to connect the two labs. i haven't had any luck getting
them to work yet...
the reason i've asked the question is because i have several site t
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:59 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be clear, both boxes lans are different subnet of course but the WANs are
> on the same subnets.
>
If they're on the same ISP with privately addressed WANs that will
work, if they allow routing between customers. If it's two
look closely... "switchport mode access" command is absent
I use this way... and works ok.
interface fastethernet 0/x
switchport mode access
switchport access vlan
Regards
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Matej Duracka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Gary,
>
> On C3550 Fa0/1 try "s
So your saying that the wan interfaces on the boxes need diff subnets?
-Phil G
On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:49 PM, "Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With 1.2 is it possible to connect to pfsense boxes on the same
subn
Hello Gary,
On C3550 Fa0/1 try "switchport trunk allowed vlan 201,202" . Then see
the output "sh interfaces trunk" . You should see if the Fa0/1 is
trunking correctly with dot1Q encapsulation.
Cheers,
- Matej
Gary Buckmaster wrote / napísal(a):
> What version of pfSense are you running? 1.
What version of pfSense are you running? 1.2-Release? 1.2.1-RC?
Fredrik Rambris wrote:
Hello
Searched through the list and found many posts on VLAN. To my
knowledge I have done what I think is correct but packages wont go
through. I can see in the pfSense logs that packages do get in on the
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:59 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be clear, both boxes lans are different subnet of course but the WANs are
> on the same subnets.
That might work. Give it a shot.
Scott
-
To unsubscribe,
To be clear, both boxes lans are different subnet of course but the
WANs are on the same subnets.
-Phil G
On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:49 PM, "Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With 1.2 is it possible to connect to pfsen
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 1.2 is it possible to connect to pfsense boxes on the same subnet via
> an ipsec tunnel? Both boxes wan interfaces are private ip's.
No, need different subnets.
Scott
--
With 1.2 is it possible to connect to pfsense boxes on the same subnet
via an ipsec tunnel? Both boxes wan interfaces are private ip's.
Thanks
-Phil
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-ma
Hello
Searched through the list and found many posts on VLAN. To my knowledge
I have done what I think is correct but packages wont go through. I can
see in the pfSense logs that packages do get in on the right VLAN
interface but that's about it.
bge0 is WAN
bge1 is LAN
I have defined two V
13 matches
Mail list logo
