On 23 apr. 2012, at 00:38, bsd wrote:
Le 22 avr. 2012 à 22:26, Seth Mos a écrit :
Hi,
Op 22 apr 2012, om 22:03 heeft bsd het volgende geschreven:
Hello my friends,
My ISP is providing a full /64 network which looks similar to
2a01:e35:2436:7e20::/64
That's the limitation
Le 23 avr. 2012 à 07:38, Seth Mos a écrit :
Hi,
Op 23 apr 2012, om 00:38 heeft bsd het volgende geschreven:
If the CPE has a bridge mode you could configure the WAN in pfSense and
configure the delegated /64 on your lan. Theoretically.
The CPE has a bridge mode (which I am using
Le 23 avr. 2012 à 09:37, Pim van Stam a écrit :
On 23 apr. 2012, at 00:38, bsd wrote:
Le 22 avr. 2012 à 22:26, Seth Mos a écrit :
Hi,
Op 22 apr 2012, om 22:03 heeft bsd het volgende geschreven:
Hello my friends,
My ISP is providing a full /64 network which looks similar to
Op 23-4-2012 9:53, bsd schreef:
Le 23 avr. 2012 à 07:38, Seth Mos a écrit :
So do you think I could manage to have a full IPv6 support on LAN by using
DHCPv6 on WAN ?
How would you manage to achieve this ?
If you want to use DHCP6, select it on the WAN, Select a Prefix
Delegation size.
Op 23-4-2012 11:02, Eugen Leitl schreef:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:54:51PM -0400, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Drew Lehmandleh...@digitatech.com wrote:
Apparently the Git option is not longer valid to upgrade 2.0.1 to 2.1 since
so much has changed. Does anyone
Hi There,
I have a fibre connection with 5 Public IPs currently added as Virtual IPs.
I am wanting to essentially pass one of the public IPs to another router (not
another pfSense) and essentially present the new router with one of the IP
addresses from the allocation of the 5.
Therefore 4
Thanks for the list of stuff that works.
Out of curiosity - how are folks planning on doing multi-WAN load
balancing in the v6 world?
With NATed v4 it was simple: get public IP from each ISP, use that on
the WAN, then use RFC1918 addresses on the LAN, translating to each
ISP's public IP as
Are there any plans to incorporate something like NAT64 (or another
4-to-6 translation method) to allow v6-only networks?
Kind regards,
Chris
--
This email is made from 100% recycled electrons
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
On 4/23/2012 8:25 AM, Chris Bagnall wrote:
Thanks for the list of stuff that works.
Out of curiosity - how are folks planning on doing multi-WAN load
balancing in the v6 world?
With NATed v4 it was simple: get public IP from each ISP, use that on
the WAN, then use RFC1918 addresses on the
On 23/4/12 1:40 pm, Jim Pingle wrote:
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Multi-WAN_for_IPv6
Already have that covered... (and it works for me at my house).
Excellent! Thanks for the link.
I shall give it a try over the weekend (it's the one thing that's been
holding me back from a fully v6'd
Op 23-4-2012 14:30, Chris Bagnall schreef:
Are there any plans to incorporate something like NAT64 (or another
4-to-6 translation method) to allow v6-only networks?
Yes, for 2.2 at it's earliest. There is a patch for pf in OpenBSD in
circulation but that's not useful right now.
Hi Group,
I noticed Checkpoint, Cisco, Sonicwall, and bunch of other firewalls have a
App for SmartPhones and Tabelts.
Any idea for Pfsense, IPSEC ssl vpn app???
I would like simple setup for vpn
Thanks,
--
Justin
IT-TECH
___
List mailing list
Iphone (or at least Ipod touch ) can do pptp and ipsec VPN natively.
No need for an app since it uses standards. Works fine for myself the times I
need to use it.
Gavin
From: list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On
Behalf Of justino garcia
Sent: 23 April
+1
On 2012-04-23, at 4:28 PM, justino garcia wrote:
Hi Group,
I noticed Checkpoint, Cisco, Sonicwall, and bunch of other firewalls have a
App for SmartPhones and Tabelts.
Any idea for Pfsense, IPSEC ssl vpn app???
I would like simple setup for vpn
Thanks,
--
Justin
An ideal iOS app would be more a configuration and logging tool for pfSense,
then one that provides VPN services.
--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: rgue...@privaterra.org
On 2012-04-23, at 4:37 PM, Gavin Will wrote:
Iphone (or at least Ipod
Op 23-4-2012 16:28, justino garcia schreef:
Hi Group,
I noticed Checkpoint, Cisco, Sonicwall, and bunch of other firewalls
have a App for SmartPhones and Tabelts.
Any idea for Pfsense, IPSEC ssl vpn app???
I would like simple setup for vpn
Thanks,
There is a OpenVPN app in the works for
I am here. I am trying to resolve this issue.
Regards,
Paul Kunicki
Network Administrator, Technology and Software
pkuni...@sproutloud.com
954.476.6211 x144
- Original Message -
From: Robert Guerra rgue...@privaterra.org
To: pfSense support and discussion
Hello all,
I want to setup pfSense on an embedded board (fanless, low power
consumption) with VPN, Snort and ntop enabled.
It is for a home network with max internet feed 100Mbit/s and 2 VPN users.
So I am thinking to go with a net6501-50 (Soekris - 1 Ghz CPU, 1 Gbyte
DDR2-SDRAM, 4 Gigabit
If I have a production system running on hardware X, and I want to move
it to hardware Y, is there a way to do so by exporting the configuration
and re-importing it on the other box? It would appear that the answer
is YES and it works 100% perfectly UNLESS the hardware interfaces are
not
... At one
point we did look at making the web interface theme for mobile browsers
a lot more finger-friendly, not sure what happened to that. We had a
mock-up screen with some large icons, one per section, and some JS that
would let you pick the menu entries using those.
I think that's all
I've considered making this type of thing work with the Redpark serial cables.
-- Jim
On Apr 23, 2012, at 9:45, Robert Guerra rgue...@privaterra.org wrote:
An ideal iOS app would be more a configuration and logging tool for pfSense,
then one that provides VPN services.
--
R.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Karl Fife karlf...@gmail.com wrote:
In the scenario where the hardware interfaces are NOT the same, is it
possible to do something simple like search/replace the configuration file,
substituting the interface names? Is there any reason to believe that
process
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Vick Khera vi...@khera.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Karl Fife karlf...@gmail.com wrote:
In the scenario where the hardware interfaces are NOT the same, is it
possible to do something simple like search/replace the configuration
file,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Seth Mos seth@dds.nl wrote:
Is it realistic to expect 2.1 with full IPv6 support by 6th June?
Define Full.
Yeah full IPv6 support is hard to quantify. You could add things to
a full IPv6 support list and create something where no product in
the world has
Depending upon what calls
of Juniper - the main difference IMHO is cost.
Are you talking gigabits of transfer ? or ?
I hate answering a question with a question - but knowing your usage
scenario - would help us answer the question much easier.
Both offer Intrusion Detection / Prevention.
You can't really compare them directly. Sure, on paper there are a lot of
common points, but the approach is so radically different, a comparison
point-by-point would merely be misleading.
If I had to draw analogies, I'd say pfSense is roughly as capable as a bare
J2320 on equivalent hardware
26 matches
Mail list logo
