Re: [pfSense] Lightning strike

[Moshe Katz]

>From the picture, those are definitely surface-mount. I don't think I'd
recommend trying it yourself unless you have experience and comfort working
with SMD components.

That said, if you do have the experience, it looks like the parts don't
cost more than a few dollars.

Moshe

On Jul 25, 2016 7:06 PM, "Jim Thompson"  wrote:

> Pic of 7541, see for yourself.
>
> http://imgur.com/5RiHxOz
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Moshe Katz  wrote:
>
> > Since you described that the board has isolation transformers, I would
> > assume that they followed the spec and put in network jacks with
> magnetics
> > <
> >
> http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/why-are-ethernet-rj45-sockets-magnetically-coupled
> > >
> > instead of direct connections.
> > As I understand it, there are two types of magnetics - those built into
> the
> > jack (as seen in this Raspberry Pi blog post
> >  with X-Ray
> > images), and those which use a separate chip or transformer.
> >
> > I believe you are correct that the only way to get it working would be to
> > desolder the fried transformer and replace it with a new one.
> >
> > Depending on your soldering skills and comfort level, you could likely
> > replace the fried part with a new one.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the only people I know who have done this successfully
> have
> > been working with the type that has integrated isolation components (like
> > the RasPi), not the type that has separate ones. Assuming the chips are
> > through-hole (like most jacks are), it should be exactly the same
> > difficulty as replacing the jack itself. Otherwise, you might have a hard
> > time. It's hard to know for sure without looking at the board directly.
> >
> > Moshe
> >
> > --
> > Moshe Katz
> > -- mo...@ymkatz.net
> > -- +1(301)867-3732
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Karl Fife  wrote:
> >
> > > The 6th Ethernet port (em5) on my Lanner fw-7541D died Saturday night
> > > during the electrical storm.  Just the one port.
> > >
> > > Apparently fried, apparently by an electrical anomaly.
> > >
> > > Now, the link light is always on (dimly lit), whether populated or not,
> > > and neither the POST, nor the OS detects the presence of the fifth
> port.
> > >
> > > Interesting how it failed: The fried port 'simply' broke connectivity
> for
> > > the interface's LAN segment.  Everything else continued to work.  I
> kinda
> > > didn't believe the report that Internet was out for the one LAN, since
> > the
> > > other was not.  After some testing, I found the system would not come
> up
> > > after reboot because it had gone into port reassignment mode since the
> > > config made reference to a non-existent interface.
> > >
> > > I edited the config in VI to de-reference the interface, and All's
> well.
> > >
> > > I really like this Lanner hardware, and would like to keep it in
> service.
> > > Ideally I'd like to fix the (now dead) spare port so that I still have
> a
> > > spare.
> > >
> > > Can anyone tell me what's component is typically fried in this
> scenario?
> > > Is it the NIC controller chip itself? I'm guessing it's not, rather I'm
> > > guessing it's just the big, blocky Ethernet Isolation
> > transformer/amplifier
> > > that's been fried.  I'm also guessing that the reason the system is
> still
> > > functional (at all) is because the little dude did its job.  I know
> it's
> > a
> > > long shot, but I'd like to hear if anyone has ever repaired a fried
> > > Ethernet port on a motherboard.
> > >
> > > Also ironic, everything's very well grounded with a dedicated
> > earth-ground
> > > via #6 AWG except the one (damned) switch that services that one
> (damned)
> > > LAN. I imagine if I'd gone to the trouble of running a dedicated ground
> > to
> > > that switch, it may not have sunk the spike.  Any experience or war
> > stories
> > > in this arena appreciated as well.  Memo to myself: Run fiber to
> switches
> > > on different power/earth.
> > >
> > > -Karl
> > > ___
> > > pfSense mailing list
> > > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> > > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
> > >
> > ___
> > pfSense mailing list
> > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
> >
> ___
> pfSense mailing list
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
>
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

[pfSense] 2.3.2-RELEASE Now Available!

[Chris Buechler]

We are happy to announce the release of pfSense® software version 2.3.2!

This is a maintenance release in the 2.3.x series, bringing a number
of bug fixes. You can find all the details on the blog.

https://blog.pfsense.org/?p=2108
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] Lightning strike

[Jim Thompson]

Pic of 7541, see for yourself.

http://imgur.com/5RiHxOz

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Moshe Katz  wrote:

> Since you described that the board has isolation transformers, I would
> assume that they followed the spec and put in network jacks with magnetics
> <
> http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/27756/why-are-ethernet-rj45-sockets-magnetically-coupled
> >
> instead of direct connections.
> As I understand it, there are two types of magnetics - those built into the
> jack (as seen in this Raspberry Pi blog post
>  with X-Ray
> images), and those which use a separate chip or transformer.
>
> I believe you are correct that the only way to get it working would be to
> desolder the fried transformer and replace it with a new one.
>
> Depending on your soldering skills and comfort level, you could likely
> replace the fried part with a new one.
>
> Unfortunately, the only people I know who have done this successfully have
> been working with the type that has integrated isolation components (like
> the RasPi), not the type that has separate ones. Assuming the chips are
> through-hole (like most jacks are), it should be exactly the same
> difficulty as replacing the jack itself. Otherwise, you might have a hard
> time. It's hard to know for sure without looking at the board directly.
>
> Moshe
>
> --
> Moshe Katz
> -- mo...@ymkatz.net
> -- +1(301)867-3732
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Karl Fife  wrote:
>
> > The 6th Ethernet port (em5) on my Lanner fw-7541D died Saturday night
> > during the electrical storm.  Just the one port.
> >
> > Apparently fried, apparently by an electrical anomaly.
> >
> > Now, the link light is always on (dimly lit), whether populated or not,
> > and neither the POST, nor the OS detects the presence of the fifth port.
> >
> > Interesting how it failed: The fried port 'simply' broke connectivity for
> > the interface's LAN segment.  Everything else continued to work.  I kinda
> > didn't believe the report that Internet was out for the one LAN, since
> the
> > other was not.  After some testing, I found the system would not come up
> > after reboot because it had gone into port reassignment mode since the
> > config made reference to a non-existent interface.
> >
> > I edited the config in VI to de-reference the interface, and All's well.
> >
> > I really like this Lanner hardware, and would like to keep it in service.
> > Ideally I'd like to fix the (now dead) spare port so that I still have a
> > spare.
> >
> > Can anyone tell me what's component is typically fried in this scenario?
> > Is it the NIC controller chip itself? I'm guessing it's not, rather I'm
> > guessing it's just the big, blocky Ethernet Isolation
> transformer/amplifier
> > that's been fried.  I'm also guessing that the reason the system is still
> > functional (at all) is because the little dude did its job.  I know it's
> a
> > long shot, but I'd like to hear if anyone has ever repaired a fried
> > Ethernet port on a motherboard.
> >
> > Also ironic, everything's very well grounded with a dedicated
> earth-ground
> > via #6 AWG except the one (damned) switch that services that one (damned)
> > LAN. I imagine if I'd gone to the trouble of running a dedicated ground
> to
> > that switch, it may not have sunk the spike.  Any experience or war
> stories
> > in this arena appreciated as well.  Memo to myself: Run fiber to switches
> > on different power/earth.
> >
> > -Karl
> > ___
> > pfSense mailing list
> > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
> >
> ___
> pfSense mailing list
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
>
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] Lightning strike

[Jim Thompson]

"Lightning surge damage to Ethernet and POTS ports connected to
inside wiring"
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=3D6842005

A summary of the paper:
http://incompliancemag.com/article/lightning-surge-damage-to-ethernet-and-pots-ports-connected-to-inside-wiring/

a slide deck on the same subject, by the same author:
http://www.atis.org/peg/docs/2015/LightningSurgeDamage_JRandolph.pdf

In which:

> Interestingly, some generic replacement power supplies purchased on the
Internet showed breakdown levels as low as 3 kV. Internal inspection
revealed that the isolation barriers in these supplies were not compliant
with [10]. These non-compliant supplies had no safety markings from
independent labs, although they did have the CE marking for manufacturer’s
self-declaration in Europe.

Which is to say cheap far-eastern wall warts are not compliant, though
claiming to be.

> At present there is no evidence of non-compliant power supplies being
used by name brand manufacturers of routers and cordless phones.

"Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to
any manufacturers
of dairy products." [1]

But here's the important bottom line:

> The key point here is that a high current, fast rise time surge on the AC
mains can interact with the inductance of the ground wire to create a high
voltage common mode surge on every cable that is connected to the surge
protector. In some sense, the surge protector takes a surge on the AC mains
and “broadcasts” it onto every cable that is connected to the surge
protector. This happens despite the fact the surge protector has been
installed correctly and the ground wire of the AC mains outlet is connected
properly.

In other words, your ground wire won't help you.   Check the slide deck
(and paper), it can be that the ground potential has risen.

I'll add that inductive coupling is a function of the rate of change rather
than the peak current.  So when di/dt is a small fraction of infinity, it
doesn't really matter much that your inductor coil is a stretch of wire
five meters away ... it's going to get a big spike of current and the teeny
tiny little transistors in your equipment are going to arc over.  A small
puff of smoke will appear.  If you're unlucky, a fire will shortly (narf)
follow.

Surge protectors have several practical failures:

1 - they are rated for a certain amount of energy, and a big strike
overwhelms that, so you're done.

2 - they are rated for that amount of energy over their service lifetime,
which means that come the big storm your five-year-old surge protector has
actually sacrificed itself to a thousand little surges that you never
noticed over the time it's been in service.

3 - they have a response curve that makes them more suitable for lower
di/dt or dv/dt spikes ... this makes them a good protection for spikes that
originate far away and get their sharp edges worn off as they travel across
the network, not so much for close hits.

For extra credit:

Who did some of the important early research on lightning effects?  Why, Mr
Steinmetz, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz


tl;dr: your multiport surge protectors are a prime suspect.

Jim

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Life_of_Brian


On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Karl Fife  wrote:

> The 6th Ethernet port (em5) on my Lanner fw-7541D died Saturday night
> during the electrical storm.  Just the one port.
>
> Apparently fried, apparently by an electrical anomaly.
>
> Now, the link light is always on (dimly lit), whether populated or not,
> and neither the POST, nor the OS detects the presence of the fifth port.
>
> Interesting how it failed: The fried port 'simply' broke connectivity for
> the interface's LAN segment.  Everything else continued to work.  I kinda
> didn't believe the report that Internet was out for the one LAN, since the
> other was not.  After some testing, I found the system would not come up
> after reboot because it had gone into port reassignment mode since the
> config made reference to a non-existent interface.
>
> I edited the config in VI to de-reference the interface, and All's well.
>
> I really like this Lanner hardware, and would like to keep it in service.
> Ideally I'd like to fix the (now dead) spare port so that I still have a
> spare.
>
> Can anyone tell me what's component is typically fried in this scenario?
> Is it the NIC controller chip itself? I'm guessing it's not, rather I'm
> guessing it's just the big, blocky Ethernet Isolation transformer/amplifier
> that's been fried.  I'm also guessing that the reason the system is still
> functional (at all) is because the little dude did its job.  I know it's a
> long shot, but I'd like to hear if anyone has ever repaired a fried
> Ethernet port on a motherboard.
>
> Also ironic, everything's very well grounded with a dedicated earth-ground
> via #6 AWG except the one (damned) switch that services that one (damned)
> LAN. I imag

Re: [pfSense] Lightning strike

[Moshe Katz]

Since you described that the board has isolation transformers, I would
assume that they followed the spec and put in network jacks with magnetics

instead of direct connections.
As I understand it, there are two types of magnetics - those built into the
jack (as seen in this Raspberry Pi blog post
 with X-Ray
images), and those which use a separate chip or transformer.

I believe you are correct that the only way to get it working would be to
desolder the fried transformer and replace it with a new one.

Depending on your soldering skills and comfort level, you could likely
replace the fried part with a new one.

Unfortunately, the only people I know who have done this successfully have
been working with the type that has integrated isolation components (like
the RasPi), not the type that has separate ones. Assuming the chips are
through-hole (like most jacks are), it should be exactly the same
difficulty as replacing the jack itself. Otherwise, you might have a hard
time. It's hard to know for sure without looking at the board directly.

Moshe

--
Moshe Katz
-- mo...@ymkatz.net
-- +1(301)867-3732

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Karl Fife  wrote:

> The 6th Ethernet port (em5) on my Lanner fw-7541D died Saturday night
> during the electrical storm.  Just the one port.
>
> Apparently fried, apparently by an electrical anomaly.
>
> Now, the link light is always on (dimly lit), whether populated or not,
> and neither the POST, nor the OS detects the presence of the fifth port.
>
> Interesting how it failed: The fried port 'simply' broke connectivity for
> the interface's LAN segment.  Everything else continued to work.  I kinda
> didn't believe the report that Internet was out for the one LAN, since the
> other was not.  After some testing, I found the system would not come up
> after reboot because it had gone into port reassignment mode since the
> config made reference to a non-existent interface.
>
> I edited the config in VI to de-reference the interface, and All's well.
>
> I really like this Lanner hardware, and would like to keep it in service.
> Ideally I'd like to fix the (now dead) spare port so that I still have a
> spare.
>
> Can anyone tell me what's component is typically fried in this scenario?
> Is it the NIC controller chip itself? I'm guessing it's not, rather I'm
> guessing it's just the big, blocky Ethernet Isolation transformer/amplifier
> that's been fried.  I'm also guessing that the reason the system is still
> functional (at all) is because the little dude did its job.  I know it's a
> long shot, but I'd like to hear if anyone has ever repaired a fried
> Ethernet port on a motherboard.
>
> Also ironic, everything's very well grounded with a dedicated earth-ground
> via #6 AWG except the one (damned) switch that services that one (damned)
> LAN. I imagine if I'd gone to the trouble of running a dedicated ground to
> that switch, it may not have sunk the spike.  Any experience or war stories
> in this arena appreciated as well.  Memo to myself: Run fiber to switches
> on different power/earth.
>
> -Karl
> ___
> pfSense mailing list
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
>
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

[pfSense] Lightning strike

[Karl Fife]

The 6th Ethernet port (em5) on my Lanner fw-7541D died Saturday night 
during the electrical storm.  Just the one port.


Apparently fried, apparently by an electrical anomaly.

Now, the link light is always on (dimly lit), whether populated or not, 
and neither the POST, nor the OS detects the presence of the fifth port.


Interesting how it failed: The fried port 'simply' broke connectivity 
for the interface's LAN segment.  Everything else continued to work.  I 
kinda didn't believe the report that Internet was out for the one LAN, 
since the other was not.  After some testing, I found the system would 
not come up after reboot because it had gone into port reassignment mode 
since the config made reference to a non-existent interface.


I edited the config in VI to de-reference the interface, and All's well.

I really like this Lanner hardware, and would like to keep it in 
service.  Ideally I'd like to fix the (now dead) spare port so that I 
still have a spare.


Can anyone tell me what's component is typically fried in this scenario? 
 Is it the NIC controller chip itself? I'm guessing it's not, rather 
I'm guessing it's just the big, blocky Ethernet Isolation 
transformer/amplifier that's been fried.  I'm also guessing that the 
reason the system is still functional (at all) is because the little 
dude did its job.  I know it's a long shot, but I'd like to hear if 
anyone has ever repaired a fried Ethernet port on a motherboard.


Also ironic, everything's very well grounded with a dedicated 
earth-ground via #6 AWG except the one (damned) switch that services 
that one (damned) LAN. I imagine if I'd gone to the trouble of running a 
dedicated ground to that switch, it may not have sunk the spike.  Any 
experience or war stories in this arena appreciated as well.  Memo to 
myself: Run fiber to switches on different power/earth.


-Karl
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] CIFS slow on PPTP

[Karl Fife]

The problem has less to do with CIFS, and more to do with applications 
and the laws of physics.


The laws of physics dictate that large files opened from far away will 
not perform like those that are close, and applications must be designed 
to deal with those realities.   This is one reason why terminal services 
and remote desktop get a lot of traction in business.  It allows data to 
sit near the application, and send just the UI data to the remote party 
(Remote Desktop as an application is mature, and works well).


There is no panacea.  There are only varying levels of compromise to 
make usable work flows.  Even the examples I've seen of traditional LAN 
applications which have been completely rebuilt to become Cloud apps are 
thought to be less 'performant' by users, ergo, also a compromise.


What will work best all depends on the business process you're trying to 
create.  Good luck.


-K


On 7/25/2016 2:22 PM, Chris wrote:

Karl Fife wrote:

Are you sure that CIFS is slow because of PPTP?  All but the latest
CIFS/SMB protocols are poorly suited for high-latency connections such
as the public Internet (e.g. where you might use VPN).  Even under the
best circumstances, many applications don't tolerate it well
(Size/speed/latency/loss etc.)

BTW: Is there any alternative to CIFS? Any parameters to speed it up? Is
there any replacement? I would use SFTP, but its usability is sth.
completely different for non-powerusers.

- Chris

___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold


___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] CIFS slow on PPTP

[Chris]

Karl Fife wrote:
> Are you sure that CIFS is slow because of PPTP?  All but the latest
> CIFS/SMB protocols are poorly suited for high-latency connections such
> as the public Internet (e.g. where you might use VPN).  Even under the
> best circumstances, many applications don't tolerate it well
> (Size/speed/latency/loss etc.)

BTW: Is there any alternative to CIFS? Any parameters to speed it up? Is
there any replacement? I would use SFTP, but its usability is sth.
completely different for non-powerusers.

- Chris

___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] CIFS slow on PPTP

[Chris]

Karl Fife wrote:
> Are you sure that CIFS is slow because of PPTP?  All but the latest
CIFS/SMB protocols are poorly suited for high-latency connections such
as the public Internet (e.g. where you might use VPN).  Even under the
best circumstances, many applications don't tolerate it well
> (Size/speed/latency/loss etc.)

Thank you. That may very well be. Maybe it was a slow WiFi and/or DSL
connection. I haven't seen it myself.

- Chris



___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] CIFS slow on PPTP

[Karl Fife]

Are you sure that CIFS is slow because of PPTP?  All but the latest 
CIFS/SMB protocols are poorly suited for high-latency connections such 
as the public Internet (e.g. where you might use VPN).  Even under the 
best circumstances, many applications don't tolerate it well 
(Size/speed/latency/loss etc.)


Just sayin'.


On 7/23/2016 4:01 PM, Chris wrote:

Dear All,

CIFS is too slow on PPTP. pfSense is server.

I've already tried to

- select "Disable Firewall scrub..."
- allowed icmp type df on WAN and PPTP interface for MTU path discovery -
default MTU seems to be 1400. Are there any (DSL?) connections where even
that is too much? Is it possible to change it on pfSense only and make the
client adjust automatically?

Are there any other things I should check?

- Chris



___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold


___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

[pfSense] IPv6 being used for NTP even though IPv6 is not configured

[Vick Khera]

According to the System/Advanced/Networking page, there is an option
to prefer IPv4. However, it says this: "if IPv6 is configured and a
hostname resolves IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, IPv6 will be used."

I do not have IPv6 configured -- all my interfaces are statically
configured. The only IPv6 I see is the automatic link-local address
assigned to each interface. Is that enough to convince pfSense that it
is "configured"?

The symptom I'm seeing is that one of the remote NTP servers I sync
with returns both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, and NTP is preferring the
v6 address which does not work here.

If I check the box to enable the "prefer IPv4" it does indeed select
the IPv4 address. So something is misleading pfSense to thinking v6 is
enabled, at least for NTP.
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

Re: [pfSense] IPv6 being used for NTP even though IPv6 is not configured

[Heath Barnhart]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are seeing an IPv6 link-local
address on an interface then IPv6 is enabled, just not configured. PFSense
gurus, does setting IPv6 to none in PFSense not disable IPv6 operation in
the OS?

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Vick Khera  wrote:

> According to the System/Advanced/Networking page, there is an option
> to prefer IPv4. However, it says this: "if IPv6 is configured and a
> hostname resolves IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, IPv6 will be used."
>
> I do not have IPv6 configured -- all my interfaces are statically
> configured. The only IPv6 I see is the automatic link-local address
> assigned to each interface. Is that enough to convince pfSense that it
> is "configured"?
>
> The symptom I'm seeing is that one of the remote NTP servers I sync
> with returns both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses, and NTP is preferring the
> v6 address which does not work here.
>
> If I check the box to enable the "prefer IPv4" it does indeed select
> the IPv4 address. So something is misleading pfSense to thinking v6 is
> enabled, at least for NTP.
> ___
> pfSense mailing list
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
>



-- 
Sincerely,
Heath Barnhart
Network Administrator
[image: KanREN] 
[image: phone] 785-856-9815
2029 Becker Drive, Suite 282
Lawrence, Kansas 66047
[image: linkedin]

 [image: twitter]  [image: twitter]
 need support? 
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold

[pfSense] Old bogon list

[Matej]

Hello,

we have received a network prefix from RIPE in May this year and pfSense
users that have enabled the bogon network filtering are still having
problems accessing our prefix. I can tell you that plenty of network admins
like to use pfSense (due to the number of reports I have :) ), however it's
a shame that it seems that list wasn't updated from May and now it's end of
July and of course due to that we are unable to access networks that run
pfSense (also pfsense.org itself) :/
It seems that the list the systems are pulling, is available at:
https://files.pfsense.org/lists/fullbogons-ipv4.txt and as of now, we're
still listed.

I don't want to publish our prefix information publicly here, can you
please point me to the maintainer of this list?

Thanks,
Matej Serc
___
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold