On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think it does work, there might be some caveats though. Does it
> > cause the portal to be bypassed? I've never tried it myself.
>
> Nope - typical behavior. Clients DHCP, hit the captive portal on the
> CARP primary, and a
> I think it does work, there might be some caveats though. Does it
> cause the portal to be bypassed? I've never tried it myself.
Nope - typical behavior. Clients DHCP, hit the captive portal on the
CARP primary, and are allowed through. Post-auth, all port-80 traffic
hits the local SQUID, w
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:45 PM, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Squid is not compatible with CP. This would have been helpful if you
> > told this up front :)
>
> That's odd, I've been running it in trans
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Squid is not compatible with CP. This would have been helpful if you
> told this up front :)
That's odd, I've been running it in transparent mode for months, and
it works just fine.
-
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Tim Dickson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Setting up the Rule to put traffic to the interface address out the default
> gateway did not work
>
> Setting the gateway to JUST the second WAN (non-loadbalance) failed
>
> Setting the gateway to DEFAULT worked... (With
