On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 02:22 -0500, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Justin Edmands
> wrote:
> > I have seen the same thing for IPsec. I have not tested it in my openvpn
> > stuff after experiencing the dropped tunnels.
> >
> > I even just edited the Description once and
On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 02:22 -0500, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Justin Edmands
> wrote:
> > I have seen the same thing for IPsec. I have not tested it in my openvpn
> > stuff after experiencing the dropped tunnels.
> >
> > I even just edited the Description once and
Hi All,
A quick note/observation when using a recent snapshot of 2.1 rc-1 ...
I have many openvpn connections, and if i modify an openvpn parameter
(client specific overrides for example). all vpn tunnels are dropped and
all states lost.
Has anyone else seen this -- is there work around?
thank
hi all,
quick question -- trying to find a modestly priced but decent 4 port
ether card here in Europe ...
is startech working well in pfsense?
thanks
m
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
t haven't configured pfSense properly for I am
> running the same version inside vmware virtual machine and all is
> working fine.
> My interfaces are configured in bridge mode.
>
>
> On 26 June 2013 12:44, mayak-cq wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
Hi All,
I have a freshly installed 2.1 RC candidate installed on a vmware
virtual machine ...
After doing basic setup, I tried pinging a host on the internet -- no
response -- finally went into pfsense and did a tcpdump on the wan
interface -- packets are being sent out the wan interface with the
hi all,
i've been googling the list and have yet to determine what the most
powerful b/g/(n) card that is supported -- apparently, the AR9220
chipset is not?
is AR9220 supported in 2.1?
would love to have 600mw in any case ...
thanks
m
___
List maili
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 08:53 -0400, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Chris Bagnall
> wrote:
> > Greetings list,
> >
> > One of our clients is currently building a property in the middle of
> > nowhere, and traditional (*DSL/cable/wireless) services aren't feasible,
> > whic
On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 23:19 -0700, Bryan D. wrote:
> I've searched both the list archives and forums, though I wasn't sure what
> phrase would yield results, and have not found an answer to the question:
> ---
> Is there a way to ask pfSense something like "would a packet
> arriving on from
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 10:45 -0500, Jim Pingle wrote:
> On 2/1/2013 10:42 AM, mayak-cq wrote:
> > Hi Chris, Hi All,
> >
> > Just pushed a crash report through the GUI -- happened this morning UTC
> > after adding a nat rule.
>
> Was it just a PHP error or an ac
Hi Chris, Hi All,
Just pushed a crash report through the GUI -- happened this morning UTC
after adding a nat rule.
This is the first time I have ever run across anything like this --
pfsense has been s stable.
I recently updated to Monday's 2.1 build -- has anyone else had issues
like this?
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 14:06 +0100, Jürgen Echter wrote:
> Am 09.01.2013 09:16, schrieb mayak-cq:
>
> >
> > On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 08:38 +0100, Jürgen Echter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > suddenly it occurs that we are no more available from external and
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 08:38 +0100, Jürgen Echter wrote:
> suddenly it occurs that we are no more available from external and i
> have to reset states from port 5060 from our internal server to our sip
> provider.
>
> after that its working again.
>
> where can i look for this really annoying
hi all,
there have been quite a few discussions about issues of natting udp (in
particular sip) where packets just go missing.
i've run into this again, spent all day on it, and ould like to just
upgrade to get rid of this -- i'm running 2.0.1
are the nightlies stable, and has anyone run across
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 00:05 -0400, Drew Lehman wrote:
> I'm thinking about setting up a third-party vpn service and I would love
> to have my web-surfing etc. routed through that vpn, but I would like
> some internal addresses to go out directly (web and mail server) from my
> static ip. Is it
hi all,
i have a client with an embedded pfsense -- massive dns packet traffic
that looks like this:
18:40:01.583976 IP 192.168.1.150.32420 > xxx.yyy.40.240.53: 33050+ [1au]
ANY? ripe.net. (38)
18:40:01.584823 IP xxx.yyy.159.197.53 > 192.168.1.150.53: 952+ [1au]
ANY? ripe.net. (38)
18:40:01.58529
and remember that NAT reflection won't work (if that is needed) -- from
the thread in 2009:
> NAT reflection for UDP has never really worked correctly. Search the
> archives and forum and ticket system. I'm not sure anyone has
> discovered
> why, but the traffic hits the firewall and never com
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 14:42 +0200, mayak-cq wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 10:59 +0200, mayak-cq wrote:
>
> > bump.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > From what I read on this forum many people are complaining that L7
> > > blocks nothing.
>
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 10:59 +0200, mayak-cq wrote:
> bump.
>
>
>
> > From what I read on this forum many people are complaining that L7
> > blocks nothing.
> >
> > On my system all traffic (not vpn though) are blocked.
> >
> > I added
bump.
> From what I read on this forum many people are complaining that L7
> blocks nothing.
>
> On my system all traffic (not vpn though) are blocked.
>
> I added an all pass Lan rule (tcp/udp) and selected the container
> under advanced options. The container is set to block torrent traffic.
hi all,
i've been googling the list and have yet to determine what the most
powerful b/g/(n) card that is supported -- apparently, the AR9220
chipset is not?
would love to have 600mw
thanks
m
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.
> From what I read on this forum many people are complaining that L7
> blocks nothing.
>
> On my system all traffic (not vpn though) are blocked.
>
> I added an all pass Lan rule (tcp/udp) and selected the container
> under advanced options. The container is set to block torrent traffic.
> Th
must be smoking too much --
i have two pfsense boxes running 2.0.1 and i just noticed that when i
select firewall rules on box-1, it displays the rules in a drop down
list. on box-2, the rules for each interface are on tabs. wildly
different interface yet both boxes are set to pfsense_ng theme.
w
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 08:06 -0500, Zvonimir Mileta wrote:
> I have this
>
> WAN
> TCP/UDP
> VoIPPorts
> VoipServer
> (ext.: any)
> VoIPPorts
>
> in voipPorts I have
> VoIPPorts 5060:5061, 1:3, 3478, 7070:7079, 4569
>
> Im using alias for VoipPorts and VoipServer(192.168.1.100)
>
hi all,
sounds to me like the rtp packets are being stopped ...
i use asterisk behind pfsense and nat udp 1 -> 2 to the asterisk
box along with 5060 (sip) and 4569 (iax2) ...
cheers
m
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 07:27 -0500, Zvonimir Mileta wrote:
>
> yes
>
> I see that call doesn't get o
You can't.
Do you understand the basics of IP networks? I think that you need to do
A LOT of reading. MAC addresses or only pertinent on the local network
segment.
M
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 15:50 +0530, suresh suresh wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> How to block websites based on the mac address?.
>
hi all,
i'm curious if some can suggest a freeware web/php testing tool to run against a
server and see how it does (server located behind pfsense).
i'd like to watch how both of them do under heavy load.
thanks
m
___
List mailing list
List@lists
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 18:03 +, Joseph Hardeman wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has been able to get pfSense running
> on VMWare? And if so, would you mind sharing how to do it. I
> was thinking of doing some testing for a buddy and installing
> pfSense on a
28 matches
Mail list logo
