On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Guy Boisvert wrote:
>
> There is no "firewall rules" on VLAN3. This is simple routing with the
> 2910AL (Layer 3) that simply forward traffic to its default gateway which is
> pfSense on VLAN0.
>
Oh, the VLANs are being routed by something else. Then you just need
Bill Marquette wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Guy Boisvert wrote:
Chris Buechler wrote:
Your firewall rules on VLAN3 need to allow the traffic.
There is no "firewall rules" on VLAN3. This is simple routing with the
2910AL (Layer 3) that simply forward traffic to its default gateway
>FWIW - I have not been able to get these to work in PFSense -at all-.
>
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833106019
I am running this one currently.
>Which versions of pfsense did you try them in?
1.2.3-RC1
jlc
FIXED! I finally figured out what was happening. There was no rule sending
traffic that needed to reach the pfsense box itself to it. For some reason,
EVERYTHING was getting pumped out the active gateway in my failover pool.
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Could somebody please clarify how to get this new version of igmpproxy for
pfSense-1.2.3-RC1?
Please test this igmpproxy binary:
http://cvs.pfsense.org/~cmb/20090828-igmpproxy
If it works, I'll updat
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Guy Boisvert wrote:
> Chris Buechler wrote:
>> Your firewall rules on VLAN3 need to allow the traffic.
>>
>
> There is no "firewall rules" on VLAN3. This is simple routing with the
> 2910AL (Layer 3) that simply forward traffic to its default gateway which is
> pfS
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Guy Boisvert wrote:
Thanks Chris! Success for connectivity between VLAN0 & VLAN3.
Now i can connect to the terminal server (192.168.0.2) from the PC on VLAN3
(192.168.3.40) but I'm unable to reach the Internet. Any traffic is allowed
from
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Guy Boisvert wrote:
>
> Thanks Chris! Success for connectivity between VLAN0 & VLAN3.
>
> Now i can connect to the terminal server (192.168.0.2) from the PC on VLAN3
> (192.168.3.40) but I'm unable to reach the Internet. Any traffic is allowed
> from the LAN inter
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Guy Boisvert wrote:
It is like pfSense does something weird when it has to handle half of an
IP connection:
Check "Bypass filtering for traffic on same interface", under System
-> Advanced. Stateful filtering won't work in that scenario.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Jesse Vollmar wrote:
>
> Sorry, your comments have confused me just a bit. I have two physical WAN
> connections that are doing failover and one LAN interface with vlans under
> it. I want those vlans to use the failover rather than just the default
> gateway. Is th
Jesse Vollmar wrote:
Wait a sec. You configured the vlan interfaces on a router but
what about pfSense side?
I used "router" as a synonym for pfsense. My mistake. I just meant my
pfSense box.
Well, as it was mentioned here earlier what you've done is not
recommended way bu
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Guy Boisvert wrote:
>
> It is like pfSense does something weird when it has to handle half of an
> IP connection:
>
Check "Bypass filtering for traffic on same interface", under System
-> Advanced. Stateful filtering won't work in that scenario.
-
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:47 AM, luismi wrote:
> After a failover, ipsec will negotiate everything again no?
>
Right, it will.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: support-h..
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
>
> Thanks Chris, I'll test it. Does it include this commit
> https://rcs.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense-tools/repos/mainline/commits/cbba0ef69dd4a01b6b8da8f04f8b742170a34591
> ?
>
Yes
-
>
> Wait a sec. You configured the vlan interfaces on a router but what about
>> pfSense side?
>
>
I used "router" as a synonym for pfsense. My mistake. I just meant my
pfSense box.
Jesse Vollmar wrote:
Nope, that helps alot. So, you already have one VLAN interface using
a load balancing rule correct? When you try to setup another VLAN
interface for load balancing it breaks?
It is breaking when I try to setup the first load balancing rule. It
will work as
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Jim Pingle wrote:
> Bill Marquette wrote:
>> Speaking personally..I use MacFusion (ssfs via FUSE with a gui
>> wrapper) to mount the filesystem via ssh. Then I point my local
>> editor at the locally mounted filesystem. This workflow should work
>> fine on Window
Bill Marquette wrote:
> Speaking personally..I use MacFusion (ssfs via FUSE with a gui
> wrapper) to mount the filesystem via ssh. Then I point my local
> editor at the locally mounted filesystem. This workflow should work
> fine on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, or anything else that supports
> sshfs/
Hi!
I have a problem with pfSense & static routing. Here is my setup:
1 HP 2650 switch (no routing)
1 HP 2910al (L3 Switching / Routing)
1 pfSense PC
Physically
==
HP 2910AL <--> HP 2550 <--> pfSense <--> Internet
Logically (Routing)
===
2910AL <--> Default VL
>
> Nope, that helps alot. So, you already have one VLAN interface using
a load balancing rule correct? When you try to setup another VLAN
interface for load balancing it breaks?
It is breaking when I try to setup the first load balancing rule. It will
work as expected for a few minutes, then
Jesse Vollmar wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Bill Marquette
mailto:bill.marque...@gmail.com>> wrote:
What's not normal (and not recommended) is the use of the physical NIC
for a network while simultaneously sending tagged frames to it. That
may or may not be relate
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
>>
>> Bill Marquette wrote:On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Evgeny
>> Yurchenko wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko
>>> wrote:
>>> What do you use to develop pfSense? which editor? debugger?
>>>
>>
>> Alternate
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Jesse Vollmar wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Bill Marquette
> wrote:
>>
>> What's not normal (and not recommended) is the use of the physical NIC
>> for a network while simultaneously sending tagged frames to it. That
>> may or may not be related to
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Bill Marquette wrote:
> What's not normal (and not recommended) is the use of the physical NIC
> for a network while simultaneously sending tagged frames to it. That
> may or may not be related to the issue you are having.
>
> --Bill
>
> Should have mentioned that
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Could somebody please clarify how to get this new version of igmpproxy for
pfSense-1.2.3-RC1?
Please test this igmpproxy binary:
http://cvs.pfsense.org/~cmb/20090828-igmpproxy
If it works, I'll updat
Bill Marquette wrote:On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Evgeny
Yurchenko wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
What do you use to develop pfSense? which editor? debugger?
Alternately and sshfs via FUSE is a great way
to edit it live on your test machine.
This
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Jesse Vollmar wrote:
>> You shouldn't use the parent interface generally. Don't think that's
>> related though. You losing connectivity from the firewall to the
>> gateway? You're far from uncharted territory, the several boxes I've
>> worked on that have 6-12 WANs
>
> You shouldn't use the parent interface generally. Don't think that's
> related though. You losing connectivity from the firewall to the
> gateway? You're far from uncharted territory, the several boxes I've
> worked on that have 6-12 WANs all use VLANs as WANs.
>
> You may need negate rules for
After a failover, ipsec will negotiate everything again no?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com
Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsens
29 matches
Mail list logo
