From the FreeBSD Problem Report filed by Molle
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=i386/98215
I speculated that eventually probing the Broadcom crypto co-processor
leads to the trap while probing the PCI bus.
Therefore, I disabled the device "ubsec" in
/home/pfsense/tools/builder_scripts/
Rolf Sommerhalder wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=i386/98215
I speculated that eventually probing the Broadcom crypto co-processor
leads to the trap while probing the PCI bus.
Cool!
Great to have someone with BSD knowledge look at this!
If by any chance you or anyone know of
Jonathan Woodard wrote:
I was just wondering if there has been anymore work done this issue. I
updated to the June 4th build and I am still having problems. I run a
pptp server and connect to a pptp server remotely. I was initally able
to connect but re-connecting will not work and hangs with t
Volker, I read this and started to panic a little bit. What, I cannot
restrict which hosts can use a port forward? I started thinking, oh
no, I have to look for a different firewall distribution.
Then I tried it out. I added a port forward
Wan TCP 5900 192.168.1.199 (ext: 192.168.40.129)
Hello,
I show the pftpx process is running on my beta4 machine, yet it has my LAN IP
address. In the config.xml I have a yet i have no other
instances of this in the config file anywhere. In the web interface I have it
disabled in the LAN, and enabled in the WAN. I made these changes and
reboo
Re enable it for the LAN and WAN.
On 6/5/06, Brad Bendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I show the pftpx process is running on my beta4 machine, yet it has my LAN IP
address. In the config.xml I have a yet i have no other
instances of this in the config file anywhere. In the web interface I h
Can anyone tell me if this is possible: --> PPTP clients connect to VPN and get LAN IP, then PPTP clients connect to OPT1 clients with OPT1 bridged to LAN ?It seems pretty basic, but I can't get it to work no matter how unrestrictive I make the rules.
Thanks for the help,NateOn 6/2/06, Nathan Osbo
Can anyone explain how to setup dhcpd to hand out leases in increasing
order rather than decreasing. I find that handing them out in
increasing order is easier to deal with in some cases. Is there a good
argument for doing them in descending order, or is it just someones
personal preference?
Josh Stompro wrote:
Can anyone explain how to setup dhcpd to hand out leases in increasing
order rather than decreasing. I find that handing them out in
increasing order is easier to deal with in some cases. Is there a
good argument for doing them in descending order, or is it just
someones
I have a similar situation and have not been able to make this work. I have a
dual wan policy based setup. Wan interface is DHCP cable modem. OPT1 is DSL
with static IPs. I have tried setting up a port forward for ftp from
OPT1->LAN. This have failed several ways. What are the official ste
> And now only 192.168.40.5 can use that port forward. Am I
> misunderstanding what you were saying? I understand how it isn't
> possible to restrict based on the original destination port
Yes that's what I meant - you can't restrict source IPs in connection
with original destination port. As
The bottom line is that it should work with the FTP helpers on. I
have invested damn near 80 hours in making FTP work in every situation
that I could. At this point I don't know what to do or say as it
works in every single install that I have access to. Really sorry
that I dont' have more inf
Dual WAN and ftp is a different story:
http://faq.pfsense.com/index.php?action=artikel&cat=1&id=142&artlang=en&highlight=userland
Holger
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Goley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:53 PM
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfS
Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
Yes that's what I meant - you can't restrict source IPs in connection
with original destination port. As soon as a source IP is allowed, it
can access on any WAN port for which there is a NAT rule, so you can't
force certain source IPs to use certain WAN ports only.
Huh
> you can limit that by source IP's on the WAN side. The only thing you
> need to keep in mind is that NAT applies first, so you're permitting
> traffic to the private IP and internal port.
Yes, that's exactly what I pointed out to the person trying to set up
NAT rules: the NAT is first, so the
Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
As a side effect of the NAT-first, you can *NOT* limit access based on
the dest port of the incoming packet, as that has already been NATed
into oblivion by the time the packet reaches the filter rules.
Ah, ok, yeah you're right on that. But that's useless. Who cares w
On 6/5/06, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, ok, yeah you're right on that. But that's useless. Who cares what
the destination port was prior to NAT? That only matters if you open
up, say, port 88 and 888 on the WAN, going to the same internal host on
the same internal port, say po
Bill Marquette wrote:
Sure :) I want port 443 from my work address to redirect to port 22
on my internal host, but for everyone else I want it to go to 443 on
my webserver. I've been meaning to change that behavior for some time
now, but it's never annoyed me enough as I've got 5 statics to pla
FTP is just evil, I wish people would stop using it!!! Is a reboot required
when you make changes to the FTP helper? Anyway I can just force the
ftpproxy, mine is showing the LAN IP (but I havent rebooted yet).
Thanks
Brad
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:51, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> The bottom line is t
On 6/5/06, Brad Bendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FTP is just evil, I wish people would stop using it!!! Is a reboot required
when you make changes to the FTP helper? Anyway I can just force the
ftpproxy, mine is showing the LAN IP (but I havent rebooted yet).
It may just require a reboot. Give
Actually, upon looking at this again, the "pftpx" application is running with
arguments of -c 8021 and -g 8021 and then the LAN IP address. How does it
know what ports it supposed to use? Im using standard 21 and then 3-35000
for the data ports, im going to do some more in depth research on
And you are redirecting this from the primary wan right?
On 6/5/06, Brad Bendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, upon looking at this again, the "pftpx" application is running with
arguments of -c 8021 and -g 8021 and then the LAN IP address. How does it
know what ports it supposed to use? Im
Yup, Primary and only WAN. Im only trying this on one IP right now (not the IP
of the firewall itself, but a Virtual IP).
On Monday 05 June 2006 21:01, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> And you are redirecting this from the primary wan right?
>
> On 6/5/06, Brad Bendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually
On 6/6/06, Brad Bendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yup, Primary and only WAN. Im only trying this on one IP right now (not the IP
of the firewall itself, but a Virtual IP).
If the WAN ftp helper is running, it should look like this:
# ps awux | grep pftpx
proxy15757 0.0 0.3 656 428 ??
Right now FTP helper is on WAN and LAN, and the output of ps awux | grep pftpx
shows:
/usr/local/sbin/pftpx -c 8021 -g 8021 192.168.xxx.xxx
Not even 2 IP's at all.
Also, the IP above is LAN IP of the firewall not the server that FTP is
running on at all.
If I try to run it manually, I get a "C
On 6/6/06, Brad Bendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right now FTP helper is on WAN and LAN, and the output of ps awux | grep pftpx
shows:
/usr/local/sbin/pftpx -c 8021 -g 8021 192.168.xxx.xxx
Not even 2 IP's at all.
Also, the IP above is LAN IP of the firewall not the server that FTP is
running on
Thank you for the link. It missed that. I saw that there were issues with
load balancing. That was part of the reason I used policy based dual wan
config. Scott, I appreciate all the time you put into this. I know this one
is a pain. I also wish FTP would go away. I have to recode part of ou
Ive removed and re-added the FTP NAT entry. It did say it added a entry for
FTP helper, but all I see is a firewall rule that adds all port 21 for LAN
and WAN, and I dont see any deny's in the firewall log. Any reason I cant run
this command manually that you would be aware of?
Thanks again for
On 6/6/06, Brad Bendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ive removed and re-added the FTP NAT entry. It did say it added a entry for
FTP helper, but all I see is a firewall rule that adds all port 21 for LAN
and WAN, and I dont see any deny's in the firewall log. Any reason I cant run
this command manual
I think it wont let me setup the WAN address becuase that address is being
used by choparp, I have to set my WAN IP's to use proxy ARP because of a
strange reason with my carrier. Could that be causing this entire fiasco?
On Monday 05 June 2006 22:00, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On 6/6/06, Brad Bend
30 matches
Mail list logo
