FWIW, I've said this before, I'll say it again. Open source works
because people have an itch to scratch and they scratch it. None of
the current devs have an IPv6 itch. It's a lot of work to convert a
predomenently IPv4 based system to work in an IPv6 world and none of
use have a need or desire
Sean Cavanaugh wrote:
> tunneling IPv6 would just let you forward traffic in IPv4to an external
> gateway that translates from IPv4 to IPv6. the developers would rather
> not do that in favor of just fully implementing support for pfSense to
> be able to route IPv6 directly without the encapsulatio
Beat Siegenthaler wrote:
And for my part I will have no problem to run pfSense and m0n0wall
parallel. I have some spare WRAPS ;-)
I am another one of those people who is running a second box in parallel
with my pfSense in order to have IPv6 on my network. I have been testing
IPv6 for a numb
Bill Marquette wrote:
> PS. Is there anything actually on IPv6 only that matters (I'll define
> "matters" the same way Apple defines "sufficient utility" so just
> because it matters to you, it may not pass my 1d6 roll)?
not yet.
worth reading "IPv6 hour at Nanog"
http://www.networkworld.com/com
I would like to second the idea of just rate limiting all port 25
connections instead of blocking. I have a rule setup at 30 sites that
only allows 4 simultaneous client connections, and limits new
connections to 3 every 60 seconds. (Just create an allow rule for SMTP
and look at the advanced
I have the traffic shaper setup to limit all traffic to a particular ip
(penalty ip in the wizard). However, when the remote end is using passive
mode to connect to the FTP server on this ip the traffic is not
restricted.
Is there any way to do this? The IP has a virtual ip (public ip). I have
Hi
I have the following setup:
two pfsense v 1.2 release firewalls, each with 3 NICs
Using the exxelent tutorial at
http://pfsense.iserv.nl/tutorials/carp/carp-cluster-new.htm these are set up to
be a cluster, and everything seems to be working fine. (CARP interfaces and
everything is as it sho
Josh Stompro wrote:
> I would like to second the idea of just rate limiting all port 25
could install a tar-pit add on to your SMTP daemon, you can then have
some fun!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional co
On a multi-wan installation, I'd like to combine policy based
routing (ie send web connections through ADSL with high download
bandwith, and VPNs through slower but more reliable SDSL), and OLSR to
ensure evriything goes through the remaining link if one of them
(probably the ADSL one) is d
