Our new code in head allows a bridge group to receive an ip and will
remedy this.
1.0 is not even out and 1.1 is much more fancy. Go figure ;)
Scott
On 1/23/06, Dan Swartzendruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:32 PM 1/23/2006, you wrote:
> >I've never really tried doing bridging with Free
General rule of thumb is that if FreeBSD 6 supports it, it'll work. I
don't have any machines with PCIe busses, but I can highly recommend
the Intel cards (em driver) for PCI/PCI-X bus machines.
--Bill
On 1/23/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We have just brought
On 1/23/06, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ideally, I'd do what Bill described, since the routing is much nicer,
> and the filtering capabilities are much better.
One note on that. Since we currently can't filter traffic coming in
off the IPSec tunnel, this setup would actually incre
Hello all,
We have just brought a couple of Dell 850 servers to use as Pfsense firewalls.
Unfortunately I didnt check too well and have found that the servers only have
PCIe slots. I cant find specific info to say that Pfsense supports PCIe,
although I have found another mail on a FreeBSD sit
I'd do the same as Bill described.
But regardless, in the diagram you provided, you don't need or want a
default route on your LAN to accomplish this. You don't need any routes
on the VPN pfsense box, and on the primary at both sites you would need
routes pointing the remote VPN subnet to the
At 07:32 PM 1/23/2006, you wrote:
I've never really tried doing bridging with FreeBSD, but with Linux
that's how bridging is done. For every interface you want to add to
the bridge, you set its IP address to 0.0.0.0. Then, you set the IP
address of the bridge interface and that becomes the bridge
I've never really tried doing bridging with FreeBSD, but with Linux
that's how bridging is done. For every interface you want to add to
the bridge, you set its IP address to 0.0.0.0. Then, you set the IP
address of the bridge interface and that becomes the bridged IP
address for all the interfaces
On 1/23/06, Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll crank down further and see what happens. For now should I assume
> that the queue monitor is possibly showing somewhat bogus data? When I'm
> on a call and not doing anything else, I see the traffic in the default
> queues.
It's pro
I know this doesn't answer your question and I'm not trying to, but
I'd like to offer my opinion FWIW. I'd attach the LAN leg from your
pfSense VPN boxes (machine 2 in each location) to a third leg on the
Internet firewall in each location and static route out it. Sending
ICMP redirects from the
I got it working, but only by moving the IP address from fxp0 to
bridge0. WTF???
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Bill Marquette wrote:
On 1/23/06, Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just as another datapoint, I had 640kb/s in for a 768kb/s adsl upload.
I've backed it down to 600kb/s, which is probably overkill. SSH still
gets laggy when a bulk upload is going on. VoIP MOS
Me neither, just trying to figure this one out.
There are many differences actually
motherboard, chips, memory, drives etc, etc
Just reaching here . would it help to give you
ssh access to look things over and see if you see
any blinding boo-boos on my part?
> I don't see how!?
>
Same here ... ps w/ grep shows it.
--
David L. Strout
Engineering Systems Plus, LLC
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [pfSense Support]
firewall logs no show
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Date: 01-23-2006 6:26 pm
> Its running fine.
>
> # ps awux | gr
I don't see how!?
Scott
On 1/23/06, David Strout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just pondering the issue and thought I'd
> throw this out there ... could it be something to
> do w/ AMD Athalon chips ... just reaching here. I
> have a simular setup on a Compaq system running
> BVE5 (upgraded
I was just pondering the issue and thought I'd
throw this out there ... could it be something to
do w/ AMD Athalon chips ... just reaching here. I
have a simular setup on a Compaq system running
BVE5 (upgraded today w/ same ISO CD) and it seems
to log no problem.
--
David L. Strout
Engineering Sy
Its running fine.
# ps awux | grep tcp
root 292 0.0 1.5 3660 1740 con- S 5:46PM 0:00.06
/usr/sbin/tcpdump -l -n -e -ttt -i pflog0
root 293 0.0 0.9 1528 996 con- I 5:46PM 0:00.01 egrep
-e IGMP|TCP|UDP|ESP|IGRP|IGMP|ICMP|esp|tcp|udp|icmp|igmp|igr
On 1/23/06, David
I ran this from CLI: (all on one line of course)
/usr/sbin/tcpdump -l -n -e -ttt -i pflog0 | egrep
-e
"IGMP|TCP|UDP|ESP|IGRP|IGMP|ICMP|esp|tcp|udp|icmp|igmp|igrp"
|logger -t pf -p local0.info
And get this .
egrep: invalid option -- t
Usage: egrep [OPTION]... PATTERN [FILE]...
Try `egrep --hel
On 1/23/06, Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just as another datapoint, I had 640kb/s in for a 768kb/s adsl upload.
> I've backed it down to 600kb/s, which is probably overkill. SSH still
> gets laggy when a bulk upload is going on. VoIP MOS score goes from 4.3
> to 3.0 with a bulk
Here is the command we run to get the logs into syslog:
Make sure you have the same command running:
mwexec_bg("/usr/sbin/tcpdump -l -n -e -ttt -i pflog0 | egrep -e
\"IGMP|TCP|UDP|ESP|IGRP|IGMP|ICMP|esp|tcp|udp|icmp|igmp|igrp\" |logger
-t pf -p local0.info");
On 1/23/06, David Strout <[EMAIL PR
Anything I can look at in the CLI that might shed
some light on the eg: tail -f a file ... I know
that system.log is NOT tailable.
--
David L. Strout
Engineering Systems Plus, LLC
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: Re: [pfSense Support] firewall logs
no show
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Just did a nmap ...
Jan 23 18:02:49 WAN XXX.XXX.66.2:3672
216.XXX.XX.X:689TCP
Jan 23 18:02:49 WAN XXX.XXX.66.2:3671
216.XXX.XX.X:673TCP
I really can't fathom why you're logs are STILL broken. I need
someone else to chime in h
I tried the BUG VAL 5 pfsemse.iso first but had
problems with the ISO burning ... so I reverted to
the BUG VAL 3. All went well on the install, but
the logs issue still plagues me.
--
David L. Strout
Engineering Systems Plus, LLC
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] firewal
Downloaded and burned the ISO yesterday morning.
Fresh install yesterday afternoon.
--
David L. Strout
Engineering Systems Plus, LLC
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] firewall logs
no show
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: support@pfsense.com
Date: 01-23-2006 5:53 pm
>
Fresh install? If not please reinstall.
On 1/23/06, David Strout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I am running 1.0b2rc5 and I am not seeing any firewall logs ... even when I
> have the "show raw logs" option checked. I had some problems with this in
> the first BETA1 release, but I thought it w
I am running 1.0b2rc5 and I am not seeing any firewall logs ... even when I have the "show raw logs" option checked. I had some problems with this in the first BETA1 release, but I thought it was fixed in this "bug validation" release.Anyone else experiencing the same issues?--David L. StroutEngin
Here is a quick
visual of what I have in a coulpe of locations
...Let me know if it comes through.--David L. StroutEngineering Systems
Plus, LLC- Original Message -Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] default
gateway on LAN ???From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: support@pfsense.comDate: 01-23-2006 4:
> > I have a ? / feature request. If pfS IS NOT the default GW on the LAN > > then I suppose that the only way to direct all traffic out the > > "REAL/PRIMARY" GW is to enter a static route for the LAN subnet to an > > alternate IP address (that of the default GW for the LAN).> I believe you can en
Hi everyone,
I'm having trouble running Remote Desktop over PPTP, using the built-in PPTP server. I can establish a PPTP connection from an outside client machine to pfSense with no problems, and can access computers on the remote pfSense LAN (ping, file shares, port 80, etc). However, when I t
Pardon the somewhat off-topic post, but I'm at my wits end. I have a
cisco aironet card that was in my pfsense box. I wanted to bridge it
to the LAN, but every time I tried, it would take down the ftp proxy,
so I thought I'd move it to the freebsd 6.0 server. I did
so. Unfortunately, I've
David Strout wrote:
I have a ? / feature request. If pfS IS NOT the default GW on the LAN
then I suppose that the only way to direct all traffic out the
"REAL/PRIMARY" GW is to enter a static route for the LAN subnet to an
alternate IP address (that of the default GW for the LAN).
I believe
Another quick quirp ... it would also be a nice addition to have the LAN interface DHCPable to it can be IP'd by DHCP . just to provide the maximum flexability. I realize that when doing the initial setup that setting the interface statically is imperative, but considering the prior post this
At 04:27 PM 1/23/2006, you wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Scott Ullrich wrote:
One major bug that everyone needs to be aware of is that the shaper
was not subtracting 20% off the upload and download speeds. Anyone
having issues should re-run the Traffic Shaper Wizard and subtract 20%
from their
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Scott Ullrich wrote:
One major bug that everyone needs to be aware of is that the shaper
was not subtracting 20% off the upload and download speeds. Anyone
having issues should re-run the Traffic Shaper Wizard and subtract 20%
from their upload and download speeds and see
I have a ? / feature request. If pfS IS NOT the default GW on the LAN then I suppose that the only way to direct all traffic out the "REAL/PRIMARY" GW is to enter a static route for the LAN subnet to an alternate IP address (that of the default GW for the LAN).I would be nice to have a default GW
On 1/23/06, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've had VoIP shaping working well for some time. The port based
> shaping and packet tagging was not working for me so I just did the
> shaping based on the source / target IP for the traffic since I know the
> IP that my traffic is coming from or de
Bill spent about 500$ in time yesterday to fix the issues. I say
500$ in time because we joked that it took a full work day to fix it.
Either way some major major fixes where put into RELENG_1 last night.
I'll be rolling a new release sometime in the next day.
Scott
On 1/23/06, Brian <[EMAIL
I've had VoIP shaping working well for some time. The port based
shaping and packet tagging was not working for me so I just did the
shaping based on the source / target IP for the traffic since I know the
IP that my traffic is coming from or destined for. I can see the
traffic placed in to t
I also use the Dual-Port Intel NIC and pfSense works fine with it.
I use 3 of them in my box for 6 ports and use 1.0pb2 v5.
No problem...
Von: David StroutGesendet: Mo 23.01.2006 03:15An: support@pfsense.comBetreff: [pfSense Support] NIC ??
I just got the current installed1.0-PREBETA2-BUG-
38 matches
Mail list logo
