Re: [pfSense-discussion] Clients... ugh

2006-02-01 Thread Rainer Duffner
DarkFoon wrote: APPLIANCE! That's the word I was looking for! Thank you! Yes, my client my client means what you said: an appliance, which is "plug, go to web interface, click, click, click and it works". He has one of those (appliance) already, but like I said, its some piece of crap

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Clients... ugh

2006-02-01 Thread Nick Buraglio
The netscreens are not too bad, I have experience with the ns5400's and the little ns5gt. They have a decent gui but the cli is a little unintuitive until you get used to it. They start getting pretty pricey when you start adding interfaces too. As a different approach you could always

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Clients... ugh

2006-02-01 Thread DarkFoon
Hmm. You have talked a little over my head... (I do not know what dot1q trunking is, and I have a vague memory of what layer 2 is... *eep*) Anyways > an individual broadcast domain per segment. Maybe > that is what he wants and/or I'm overlooking something. I don't think my client would know wha

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Clients... ugh

2006-02-01 Thread Rainer Duffner
DarkFoon wrote: Hmm. You have talked a little over my head... (I do not know what dot1q trunking is, and I have a vague memory of what layer 2 is... *eep*) Anyways an individual broadcast domain per segment. Maybe that is what he wants and/or I'm overlooking something. I don't think