New book on pfSense

pfSense: The Definitive Guide (Paperback) http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=509 Useful presentations: http://www.bsdcan.org/2008/schedule/attachments/66_pfSenseTutorial.pdf http://www.bsdcan.org/2009/schedule/attachments/94_pfSense_2_0_and_beyond_BSDCan_09.pdf -- Volker Kuhlmann is

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:56 PM, David Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At risk of straying even more OT than where we started this thread from, I > came across this article today: > > Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it > > http://mpt.net.nz/archive/2008/08/01/free-softwar

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

At risk of straying even more OT than where we started this thread from, I came across this article today: Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Stephen Irons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The standard...there are so many. Not when it comes to the content of an SMTP message there aren't :-) -jim

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Nick Rout wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Perhaps there's reason why ; shouldn't be used. >> >> I don't know what those reasons are. >> >> > > The reason it shouldn't be used is that it isn't in the standard. > The standard...there ar

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, David Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What *is* the appropriate process when a monopoly abuses its position in > defiance of a standard? > > Vote with your feet & suffer the (admittedly minor) consequences. If you are > interested, here's my bug report. > https://

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

What *is* the appropriate process when a monopoly abuses its position in defiance of a standard? Vote with your feet & suffer the (admittedly minor) consequences. If you are interested, here's my bug report. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/257101 I also logged it as a 'br

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Nick Rout wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps there's reason why ; shouldn't be used. I don't know what those reasons are. The reason it shouldn't be used is that it isn't in the standard. I know that. I was just wondering why they didn't

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 15:14 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: > The reason it shouldn't be used is that it isn't in the standard. So the choices are: (1) Get Microsoft to adhere to the standards, or (2) Implement an exception allowing optional non-strict interpretation of the standard. (3) Let Open Source

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps there's reason why ; shouldn't be used. > > I don't know what those reasons are. > The reason it shouldn't be used is that it isn't in the standard.

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Nick Rout wrote: I realise your post is slightly tongue in cheek, but... Although you are right about the point of free software, free software is closely (one might almost say necessarily) tied to open standards. Thats why your request to the evolution authors to support an out of standard "fe

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM, David Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> That's when you branch the code and start out on our own with something >> that others want if the original guys won't. >> >> > Yes indeed - and

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > David Lowe wrote: > >> So I >> reckon they should break the standard to meet the real world. I'm not >> holding my breath. >> > > That's when you branch the code and start out on our own with something > that others want

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

David Lowe wrote: So I reckon they should break the standard to meet the real world. I'm not holding my breath. That's when you branch the code and start out on our own with something that others want if the original guys won't. Look at how many projects that's happened to. Cheers Don

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How can you call a program that is unusable 'pure'? > > It depends on who the user is... software usually has multiple users and buyers and they all value different things. Something that is technically brilliant but cant be o

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Good point On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 20:54 +1200, Steve wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:25:07 +1200 > Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I also wonder if SIP clients are really just 'not as finished as the > > current Skype client'. > > As for clients, is, for example, ekiga really that d

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now we're really heading OT... but I 100% agree with you that there's > stacks of software out there in the MS world that just has bugs in it. To > me, anything that causes 100% CPU is just a bug. > > Cheers Don Try readin

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

ugh it doesn't have to handle the media payload. (As of asterisk 1.4 IAX supports this as well, but none of the major soft switches support it yet, as their development cycles are far longer than that of Asterisk) So, did anyone actually know how to get SIP connections through a pfsense box?

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Steve wrote: I very much doubt that you set up your own mail server ( nope, you use gplhost services instead ) Actually I have two of my own mail servers and I use GPLHost as well. One day I will have 2 mail servers and no GPLHost... I'm just not that confident yet :) I think your point is

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

. The only bit of my problem that is open source, and even vaguely cheap in this case is pfsense. The phone I need to work is a rather expensive four line IP hard phone. It's the SIP protocol and NAT traversal which is the issue... SIP is equally used by open source and commercial syste

Re: OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:25:07 +1200 Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also wonder if SIP clients are really just 'not as finished as the > current Skype client'. > > Cheers Don RFC 3261 defines SIP. It's a standard. Like RFC 2821 defines SMTP. It's complete. Finished. Working. Provides i

OT: Skype & Standards. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

David Lowe wrote: This is a fascinating debate, especially in light of Stallman's speech. David I agree with you. Stallman has caused me to question my views on this whole issue and consider more about what we're not paying enough attention to at present. MS (and many other commercial softw

Re: OT: Web Browser standards, MS and everyone else. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Don Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "What's wrong with the standard just being the one that MS give us. After > all, they usually pay for some of the best people to develop the standard. > Why should it be in 'independent' body?" Errm, they didn't "give us a st

OT: Web Browser standards, MS and everyone else. Was: Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Kerry wrote: I sure I'm not the only one here who remembers when neither microsoft or netscape didn't care who's technical feet they stood on and website designers almost got to the point where you had to design two websites depending on what browser someone used. That's one of the best reminde

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Jim Cheetham wrote: Luckily, the people that "run" the Internet are fans of technical purity, otherwise you'd still have MSN and AOL not talking to each other. Why was it that it changed? Was it because of technical purity or the understanding that one would die is they didn't start to talk?

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

This is a fascinating debate, especially in light of Stallman's speech. I was trained in my last job in the Pragmatic Marketing way of technology product management www.pragmaticmarketing.com where the central idea is that a problem has be both urgent and important for your customer base for it to

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 15:37 +1200, Don Gould wrote: > > Programmers in the MS Windows space are willing to go to the end mile to > just make applications work for the user and don't care whos technical > foot they stand on along the way. > > Cheers Don I sure I'm not the only one here who rem

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Vik Olliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 15:37 +1200, Don Gould wrote: > > Programmers in the MS Windows space are willing to go to the end mile > > to > > just make applications work for the user and don't care whos > > technical > > foot they

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Vik Olliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 13:58 +1200, Jim Cheetham wrote: >> Skype will use any and all network ports that it can find open, >> regardless of their reason. It will send your call data over port 443, >> pretending to be HTTPS tra

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 15:37 +1200, Don Gould wrote: > Programmers in the MS Windows space are willing to go to the end mile > to > just make applications work for the user and don't care whos > technical > foot they stand on along the way. The obvious riposte to that is, of course, "If we all di

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Vik Olliver wrote: So, Skype has done what is necessary to work while Open Source SIP apps won't work for people because they won't adapt. ...or haven't yet. Looks to me like a case of technical purity being held over the needs of the user. A very common observation from my 6 or 7 years i

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 13:58 +1200, Jim Cheetham wrote: > Skype will use any and all network ports that it can find open, > regardless of their reason. It will send your call data over port 443, > pretending to be HTTPS traffic in order to defeat your proxy systems. > > SIP uses only the ports that

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Vik Olliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Er, not quite what I meant. What's the technical workings that makes > Skype auto-configurable and how does one go about gluing it into a SIP > auto-configuration wrapper? What needs to change? Who needs to be lent > on? Sk

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Jim Cheetham wrote: At the end of the day, if you want something different, you have to be prepared to pay for it, somehow. Currently, that semi-technical-end-user space needs you to use proprietary software :-( I think part of the question was "How does Skype do it?" What is it about Skype

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 10:25 +1200, Jim Cheetham wrote: > Skype is written specifically to benefit the parent company; > specifically to cope with the case where the end-user doesn't know > what to do besides just press the green go button. I don't see why easy of use has to be tied to a parent com

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Vik Olliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is this so much harder to do with Open Source software than it is > with Skype? I load and run Skype, it works. It doesn't care what > firewall I have, who has what proxies or any of that nonsense. No, it doesn't care --

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 23:02 +1200, Chris Hellyar wrote: > Suggests that pfsense/siproxd should just work, and it opens the ports > for you.. Hence my assumption that I've missed the obvious. > > What adsl router are you using outside the WRT? > > I'm just setting up

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Hi-ho, I'm picking the double-layer NAT is my issue here (AG300 + pfsense). Inbound calls work, with one-way audio, so siproxd is partially working.. It's sooo close I can smell it. :-). I might try monowall, as I understand it's siproxd install by default is a transparent sip

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Chris Hellyar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What adsl router are you using outside the WRT? I'm not on ADSL; the OpenWRT *is* the edge of my network. Sorry ... > I'm just setting up a test phone on a different SIP provider, to see if I > get any joy with that...

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

Hi-ho, The info I found for siproxd: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,10084.0.html Suggests that pfsense/siproxd should just work, and it opens the ports for you.. Hence my assumption that I've missed the obvious. What adsl router are you using outside the WRT? I'm just se

Re: SIP phones and pfsense....

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Chris Hellyar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone out there in CLUG land using a sip phone or asterisk behind a pfsense > firewall with SIP connections with any success? I have one behind an OpenWRT, no problems. Nothing as easy as, you're lettin

SIP phones and pfsense....

Hi-ho, Anyone out there in CLUG land using a sip phone or asterisk behind a pfsense firewall with SIP connections with any success? My current scenario: [Asterisk] <-> [pfsense] <-> [Linksys AG300] <-> Xtra I have a feeling I've missed something obvious, as google tells

Re: pfSense / hostapd

On Mon 23 Jun 2008 19:12:01 NZST +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > I've just changed my firewall s/w to pfSense - thanks Volker - so that I can > create an access point on the P-II machine. With respect to wireless support I wouldn't have expected pfsense to be any different/b

pfSense / hostapd

Greetings everybody, I've just changed my firewall s/w to pfSense - thanks Volker - so that I can create an access point on the P-II machine. The wireless works perfectly with my ThinkPad which has an Intel ipw2100 card in it, However Caleb's Dell Inspiron requires one to res

Re: PFSense

Mike Pearce wrote: Anyone had experience setting PFSense up with multipule networks? Had an hour spare to have a play and have a box up and running with 5 networks cards. 1 to WAN 4 x LAN 3 for the people I share the connection with. 1 for a wireless Router Currently looks like I can

Re: PFSense

probably the Monowall website which is what pfsense is based on: www.m0n0.ch Pfsense works pretty well and functions in a fairly straightforward manner. I have a machine currently running a beta of the upcoming release but bugs can be found even in the release versions :) Cheers L Mike Pearce

PFSense

Anyone had experience setting PFSense up with multipule networks? Had an hour spare to have a play and have a box up and running with 5 networks cards. 1 to WAN 4 x LAN 3 for the people I share the connection with. 1 for a wireless Router Currently looks like I can only set up one LAN

pfSense 1.0 released

http://digg.com/security/pfSense_1_0_Released_today_at_13_13_EST http://pfsense.blogspot.com/2006/10/10-released.html Marvellous firewall distro.

pfSense memory usage was RE: Telstra cable...

che buffers. I don't run any swap space - that is probably what made me think of 128 Mb minimum ram. -Original Message- From: Volker Kuhlmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 23 June 2006 9:13 a.m. To: linux-users@it.canterbury.ac.nz Subject: Re: Telstra cable... [pf