Hello,
I have a simple pfsense setup that does NAT for our office. I noticed that
streaming videos take a long time to load on the clients.
Upon further investigation I learned that these videos use rtsp or mms
protocols, which are composed of tcp control channel and udp data channel,
ititiat
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Jure Pečar wrote:
> Upon further investigation I learned that these videos use rtsp or mms
> protocols, which are composed of tcp control channel and udp data channel,
> ititiated by the server. Client requests video via tcp and server starts
Back in the days wh
I know it looks stupid, but...
1.2.3-RC1
LAN=10.29.1.19/24
WAN(PPPoE)=x.x.x.106
remote LAN=10.29.11.1/24
remote WAN=x.x.x.225
Tunnel is up.
When I do from pfSense itself ping -S 10.29.1.19 10.29.11.1 everything
goes well, ESP packets and ping reply.
When I do ping 10.29.11.1 from 10.29.1.34 con
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
> I know it looks stupid, but...
> 1.2.3-RC1
> LAN=10.29.1.19/24
> WAN(PPPoE)=x.x.x.106
>
> remote LAN=10.29.11.1/24
> remote WAN=x.x.x.225
> Tunnel is up.
>
> When I do from pfSense itself ping -S 10.29.1.19 10.29.11.1 everything goes
> we
Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
tunnel. Pretty sure that is documented somewhere on the doc site.
Scott
So, it is impossible to use IPSec with PPPoE on WAN?
Eugene
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
> So, it is impossible to use IPSec with PPPoE on WAN?
> Eugene
That would be news to me. It should work fine.
Scott
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfse
Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
tunnel. Pretty sure that is documented somewhere on the doc site.
Scott
So, it is impossible to use IPSec w
please can /etc/inc/system.inc be changed so that syslogd ONLY binds to
127.0.0.1 rather than *.*.*.*
this makes it much easier to also install syslog-ng so that you can
supplement the local clog stuff with a full log and reflect it to a
remote site (you'd install syslog-ng, make it bind to, say,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
> Then sorry Scott, I do not understand your statement: "Traffic on the
> firewall itself prefers the system routing table. Clients behind the
> firewall will prefer the IPSEC tunnel."
> In my case traffic initiated on the firewall itself
On 22/09/09 11:00, Jure Pečar wrote:
> I have a simple pfsense setup that does NAT for our office.
we found that desktop streaming clients were quite tolerant of
nat-related issues but mobile phones were not, and as a consequence when
we set up darwin streaming server behind pfsense with port for
On 22/09/09 17:36, Scott Ullrich wrote:
>
> That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
> routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
> tunnel. Pretty sure that is documented somewhere on the doc site.
>
if you want connections initiated by the fir
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Then sorry Scott, I do not understand your statement: "Traffic on the
firewall itself prefers the system routing table. Clients behind the
firewall will prefer the IPSEC tunnel."
In my case traffic initiated on t
Paul Mansfield wrote:
On 22/09/09 17:36, Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
tunnel. Pretty sure that is documented somewhere on the doc site.
if you want connectio
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
> Paul Mansfield wrote:
>>
>> On 22/09/09 17:36, Scott Ullrich wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
>>> routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
>>> tunnel. Pretty s
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
Paul Mansfield wrote:
On 22/09/09 17:36, Scott Ullrich wrote:
That is normal. Traffic on the firewall itself prefers the system
routing table. Clients behind the firewall will prefer the IPSEC
tu
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
>
> I can not ping 10.29.11.1 or 10.29.11.2 from any host connected to LAN
> pfSense1. Traffic does not go over IPSec but instead natted and goes to
> Internet.
> On WAN (ng0):
> 20:29:13.951253 IP x.x.x.106 > 10.29.11.1: ICMP echo request,
Hello,
Are there any known issues with quad NIC cards on a pfSense box?
I'm looking at a Proliant DL360 G3 with an Intel Pro 1000 GT Quad Port
adapter
http://www.intel.com/products/server/adapters/pro1000gt-quadport/pro1000gt-quadport-overview.htm
Thanks!
Luke Jaeger | Technology Coordinat
Chris Buechler wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote:
I can not ping 10.29.11.1 or 10.29.11.2 from any host connected to LAN
pfSense1. Traffic does not go over IPSec but instead natted and goes to
Internet.
On WAN (ng0):
20:29:13.951253 IP x.x.x.106 > 10.29.11.1: IC
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Luke Jaeger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Are there any known issues with quad NIC cards on a pfSense box?
>
> I'm looking at a Proliant DL360 G3 with an Intel Pro 1000 GT Quad Port
> adapter
>
> http://www.intel.com/products/server/adapters/pro1000gt-quadport/pro1000gt-quad
2009/9/23 Scott Ullrich :
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Luke Jaeger wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Are there any known issues with quad NIC cards on a pfSense box?
>>
>> I'm looking at a Proliant DL360 G3 with an Intel Pro 1000 GT Quad Port
>> adapter
>>
>> http://www.intel.com/products/server/adapte
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:26, Luke Jaeger wrote:
> Are there any known issues with quad NIC cards on a pfSense box?
Should be fine, your average (decent) quad NIC is a PCI(express)
bridge on a card with what essentially amounts to 4 individual network
adapters on it, far as pfSense is concerned
21 matches
Mail list logo
