On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Alex Damast [Aqua-Flo]
wrote:
> Not true at all. Layer 7 does do this exact thing in pfsense and it works
> well.
>
That is true of some, there aren't signatures that match every
possible means of streaming video though.
Not true at all. Layer 7 does do this exact thing in pfsense and it works well.
Alex
(805)967-1938 - Office
(805)845-4794 - After hours
www.aquaflo.com
On May 3, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
> Similar on your other QoS point in that you'll
> have difficulty differentiating at least
-Original Message-
From: list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org]
On Behalf Of Chris Buechler
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:21 PM
To: pfSense support and discussion
Subject: Re: [pfSense] is pfSense the right choice?
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Noam
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Noam Birnbaum
wrote:
> Good call, David --
>
> They current have dual WAN -- 40/40 WiMAX and 50/10 cable. I expect that as
> they grow these pipes will at least double.
>
> As for their *expectations* -- they are a web development startup in San
> Francisco, so…
On May 3, 2012, at 12:58, David Burgess wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Noam Birnbaum
> wrote:
>> Good call, David --
>>
>> They current have dual WAN -- 40/40 WiMAX and 50/10 cable. I expect that as
>> they grow these pipes will at least double.
>
>
> pfsense should do fine, but
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Noam Birnbaum
wrote:
> Good call, David --
>
> They current have dual WAN -- 40/40 WiMAX and 50/10 cable. I expect that as
> they grow these pipes will at least double.
pfsense should do fine, but last I looked most of the netgate stuff
was Alix-based, which do
Good call, David --
They current have dual WAN -- 40/40 WiMAX and 50/10 cable. I expect that as
they grow these pipes will at least double.
As for their *expectations* -- they are a web development startup in San
Francisco, so… they have very high expectations. They'll swallow whatever
ban
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Noam Birnbaum
wrote:
> Is pfSense the right choice for this environment?
You didn't mention the (arguably) most important feature of your
proposed environment, which would be throughput expectations.
For the feature set you mentioned though, pfsense sounds like
Hey all,
We've been experimenting with Netgate appliances running pfSense 2 this year at
a few small clients. We're still learning the feature set.
We have a client that's 30 people growing to 75. They need a router that can:
- provide granular QoS for VoIP, videoconferencing, and streaming
