On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Tom S wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> If I have traffic between vlans, could it be more performance consuming than
> routing between physical interfaces ?
> If I'll transfer the vlans that are talking to each other to two different
> physical interfaces, should it be better
Sounds like APR Poisoning , in your wan interface settings From Interface>>
WAN Enter the Physical address of the WAN Ethernet Adapter and then check.
Regards,
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Pankaj Kumar wrote:
> Hi, i have PfSense 2.0.1 installed on system with multiple WAN
> load-balanci
Curious to know the speeds and what the setup looks like.
Mehma
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Dual quad core 5420s, 8GB RAM, ~915Mbps. Would have taken more if the
interfaces weren't full or were lagged.
Also seen 200k states on that box, but it was boggy at that point. Stateful
firewalls only go so far (that goes for iptables/conntrack *on* the servers
behind the firewall, too). :(
Hi all,
Tried asking in the forums and on IRC but no one seems to be able to
help
Running 2.0.1-RELEASE (amd64)
I have 2 WAN facing interfaces, WAN and OPT1.
I have 1 LAN facing interface, LAN.
Normally I move 1 megabit per second outbound through OPT1 and near to
nothing outbound through W
I could lie and show a screen cap of mine that claims it has and uses 10g
interfaces :-p
Realistically, there are sizing guides on the forum/wiki to handle different
bandwidths. People are running them gig+ in production datacenters. Golden
rule of routers/firewalls: "The more rules/actions/ad
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> Dual quad core 5420s, 8GB RAM, ~915Mbps. Would have taken more if the
> interfaces weren’t full or were lagged.
>
> **
>
Gig wire speed is no problem at larger packet sizes (at all 64K packets,
not going to happen, but that's true of
On 3/2/12 1:25 PM, Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
Perhaps if you posted what type of scenario you are looking to
implement, others can reply with what they built to handle the load.
I am thinking of a RFP from an un-named country with current BW of 85
Gbps. They are looking for a system to handle 100
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Mehma Sarja wrote:
>
> I am thinking of a RFP from an un-named country with current BW of 85 Gbps.
> They are looking for a system to handle 100 Gbps. I have a gut feeling that
> this stream needs to be split and filtered that way.
Yes if it truly has to be firewal
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Christian Borchert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Tried asking in the forums and on IRC but no one seems to be able to
> help
>
> Running 2.0.1-RELEASE (amd64)
>
> I have 2 WAN facing interfaces, WAN and OPT1.
> I have 1 LAN facing interface, LAN.
>
> Normally I move 1 m
Looks like you first noticed this bug in March 2011.
Here is a 3rd forum thread from October 2011 with the same bug.
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,42081.0.html
One commonality between yours and my setup is we both use IPSEC tunnels.
Perhaps this bug should be reopened.
On Fri, Mar 2,
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Christian Borchert wrote:
> Looks like you first noticed this bug in March 2011.
>
> Here is a 3rd forum thread from October 2011 with the same bug.
> http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,42081.0.html
>
> One commonality between yours and my setup is we both us
I have Pfsense with multiple WAN load balancing , and 2 LAN interface one
for LAN and one for DMZ
now i am facing problem while i am accessing ftp server with my public ip
its encountering an error like "27 Entering Passive Mode
(59,177,83,9,90,196)
220 (vsFTPd 2.0.7 "
Please help me !
Thanks
_
13 matches
Mail list logo
