1 Mbit should be fine on the minimum spec box - a pentium with 128 Mb ram.
More is good of course.
-Original Message-
From: Jack Pivac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2006 1:25 p.m.
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping / prioritisation
on 07/06/06 12:15 Scott Ullrich said the following:
On 6/6/06, Jack Pivac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All,
Have a PFSense BETA4 box running here, working great normally apart from
the bw sharing.
2 of us can be happily gaming playing world of warcraft, but if someone
else comes along and do
I'd recommend a hard drive or a CF card in an IDE/CF adapter.
The LiveCD isn't *really* for long term production use... More of a testing
thing.
-Original Message-
From: Dimitri Rodis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2006 12:36 p.m.
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [
On 6/6/06, Dimitri Rodis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there instructions on how to accomplish this somewhere?
Or will RELENG_1-SNAPSHOT-05-05-2006/pfSense.iso.gz have what I need?
http://wiki.pfsense.com/wikka.php?wakka=DeveloperBootStrapApfSenseDevelopersISOInstallation
---
On 6/6/06, Dimitri Rodis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If I am running the LiveCD on a machine with no Hard Drive, how do I
>> "upgrade" to the latest release? (Maybe I'm a dork-- I glanced at the
>> FAQ but it didn't jump out at me)
>>
>> Is there a way to "integrate" the updates into the livec
On 6/6/06, Dimitri Rodis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I am running the LiveCD on a machine with no Hard Drive, how do I
"upgrade" to the latest release? (Maybe I'm a dork-- I glanced at the
FAQ but it didn't jump out at me)
Is there a way to "integrate" the updates into the livecd, and then I
c
If I am running the LiveCD on a machine with no Hard Drive, how do I
"upgrade" to the latest release? (Maybe I'm a dork-- I glanced at the
FAQ but it didn't jump out at me)
Is there a way to "integrate" the updates into the livecd, and then I
can burn a new copy? I am having similar issues with tr
On 6/6/06, Jack Pivac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi All,
Have a PFSense BETA4 box running here, working great normally apart from
the bw sharing.
2 of us can be happily gaming playing world of warcraft, but if someone
else comes along and does some heavy web browsing, or even downloading a
file
Hi All,
Have a PFSense BETA4 box running here, working great normally apart from
the bw sharing.
2 of us can be happily gaming playing world of warcraft, but if someone
else comes along and does some heavy web browsing, or even downloading a
file on a single http stream, then the games lag o
Scott Ullrich wrote:
I am pretty sure this was solved. Are you using an up to do date
system? Run cvs_sync.sh releng_1 if you are on a full installation
and please test again.
I am on B4, will test with latest CVS and report back.
raj
---
On 6/6/06, Brad Bendy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
Not sure but the easy wa
I am pretty sure this was solved. Are you using an up to do date
system? Run cvs_sync.sh releng_1 if you are on a full installation
and please test again.
On 6/6/06, Rajkumar S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I was playing with FTP port forwarding today and noticed that one of the
automatic
On 6/6/06, Lawrence Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So do you set these up as virtual IP's then? Or is it a recent change
(im still on RELENG_1_SNAPSHOT_03-26-2006).
No, allowing source address to be used in the port forward syntax
isn't in RELENG_1 and won't be. I think it's a good idea and i
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Marquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 June 2006 14:20
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] port forwarding
>
> On 6/6/06, Angelo Turetta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think filtering both before and after NAT is out of sc
On 6/6/06, Angelo Turetta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think filtering both before and after NAT is out of scope (pf is not
designed to do that).
correct
What could be easily done to alleviate 'the missing' would be to add to
the 'rdr' UI the possibility to specify the FROM part of the rule.
> Still prefer PFSense to doing it all by hand tho :D
Ack! The total number of available firewall applications to bang on a
retired PC is pfsense, ipcop, and endian (not counting embedded system
stuff). While I reserve judgement on endian, pfsense is a professional
construction that beats ipcop ho
Yeah, we noticed this behaviour too and have already a workaround in place to
prevent this from happening in the next version. To patch your version please
go to Diagnostics>edit file in the webgui and open /etc/inc/interfaces.inc
(just to make sure you have no typo in the path, you should see a
Hi. I'm using PFSense on a Wrap board, Atheros card and the latest beta
release of PFSense.
lan : ethernet 10.0.0.0/24
wan : not used
opt1 : wlan bridged with lan
opt2 : ethernet pfsense management subnet on 172.x
Previously WPA/WPA2 worked well, but after several reconfigs later, opt1
is runni
> -Original Message-
> From: Angelo Turetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 June 2006 10:43
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] port forwarding
>
> Bill Marquette wrote:
> > On 6/5/06, Chris Buechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, ok, yeah you're r
Bill Marquette wrote:
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?
Or I want port 443 to redirect to my honeypot by default except for my
friends which can legitimately get t
> 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 play
> with and can
21 matches
Mail list logo
