Re: [pfSense-discussion] how do I "not rdr" with pfsense
On 11/4/05, Andrew Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dan Swartzendruber wrote: > > At 04:33 PM 11/1/2005, you wrote: > > > >> Count me in on SNAT/DNAT. It has been used for a long time and I for one > >> think it's very descriptive and logical. > > > > > > Seconded. > > How is that better than a circuit level gateway? I lean towards that > sort of thing since it reduces various headaches like MTU negotiation. huh? what does this have to do with NAT? --Bill
Re: [pfSense-discussion] Restricted viewing...
http://www.loganalysis.org/ For all your log analysis needs. -- http://www.lightconsulting.com/~travis/ -><- "We already have enough fast, insecure systems." -- Schneier & Ferguson GPG fingerprint: 50A1 15C5 A9DE 23B9 ED98 C93E 38E9 204A 94C2 641B
Re: [pfSense-discussion] *dances*
Give it a try... http://www.pfsense.com/~sullrich/pfSense-LiveCD-0.92.iso Scott On 11/4/05, Matthew Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > from the release notes for FreeBSD 6.0 > > "cdboot now works around a BIOS problem observed on some systems when > booting from USB CDROM drives." > > swet. This was kicking my butt when I first started using pfSense. > I was really hesitant about upgrading my FWs because if they got horked > really bad the only option was opening up the case and jumping through > hoops. Hopefully this will resolve those issues once pfSense starts > using 6.0 (if it isn't already). > > -Matt > >
[pfSense-discussion] *dances*
from the release notes for FreeBSD 6.0 "cdboot now works around a BIOS problem observed on some systems when booting from USB CDROM drives." swet. This was kicking my butt when I first started using pfSense. I was really hesitant about upgrading my FWs because if they got horked really bad the only option was opening up the case and jumping through hoops. Hopefully this will resolve those issues once pfSense starts using 6.0 (if it isn't already). -Matt
Re: [pfSense-discussion] how do I "not rdr" with pfsense
Dan Swartzendruber wrote: At 04:33 PM 11/1/2005, you wrote: Count me in on SNAT/DNAT. It has been used for a long time and I for one think it's very descriptive and logical. Seconded. How is that better than a circuit level gateway? I lean towards that sort of thing since it reduces various headaches like MTU negotiation.
