[pfSense Support] TCP Connection Closed on Client But pfsense States Still Established

I tried posting this specifically before and didn't have any luck ( http://www.mail-archive.com/support@pfsense.com/msg19099.html ) but now that I have contacted Microsoft I have a few more details to ask the questions with. Here is the basic scenario: - On the server, TCP session timeouts have be

Re: [pfSense Support] Is it poosible to NAT depending of the gateway

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Danny wrote: > > So. If the gateway for a given interface is dynamic (failover), there is no > solution. Isn´t it? > No, that works fine. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com

Re: [pfSense Support] Is it poosible to NAT depending of the gateway

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Chris Buechler wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Danny wrote: > > That´s the question > > > > I know is possible to NAT depending of source ande depending on > destination. > > > > But is it possible to NAT depending on the gateway the traffic left the >

Re: [pfSense Support] Is it poosible to NAT depending of the gateway

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Danny wrote: > That´s the question > > I know is possible to NAT depending of source ande depending on destination. > > But is it possible to NAT depending on the gateway the traffic left the > firewall? > Depends. All NAT happens based on the interface the traffi

[pfSense Support] Is it poosible to NAT depending of the gateway

That´s the question I know is possible to NAT depending of source ande depending on destination. But is it possible to NAT depending on the gateway the traffic left the firewall? Regards -- dpc

Re: [pfSense Support] Firewall drops all packets after upgrade from 1.2 to 1.2.3

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Bastian Schern wrote: > Am 26.03.2010 10:54, schrieb Chris Buechler: > [...] >> >> Probably asymmetric routing. The flags default in newer PF versions in >> FreeBSD 7.x (pfSense 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3) is much more strict than it >> was in FreeBSD 6.2 (pfSense 1.2).

Re: [pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote: > Danny wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote: > >> Danny wrote: >> >>> I cannot do that, because the main infrastructured is already built-in. >>> >>> I mean 192.168.212.0/24 and

Re: [pfSense Support] Firewall drops all packets after upgrade from 1.2 to 1.2.3

Am 26.03.2010 10:54, schrieb Chris Buechler: [...] Probably asymmetric routing. The flags default in newer PF versions in FreeBSD 7.x (pfSense 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3) is much more strict than it was in FreeBSD 6.2 (pfSense 1.2). So if the firewall isn't seeing the entire connection (such as only tr

Re: [pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

Danny wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote: Danny wrote: I cannot do that, because the main infrastructured is already built-in. I mean 192.168.212.0/24 and 172.24.24.0/24

Re: [pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Evgeny Yurchenko wrote: > Danny wrote: > >> I cannot do that, because the main infrastructured is already built-in. >> >> I mean 192.168.212.0/24 and 172.24.24.0/24 < >> http://172.24.24.0/24>, both got ROUTER GW as default router "today".

Re: [pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

Danny wrote: I cannot do that, because the main infrastructured is already built-in. I mean 192.168.212.0/24 and 172.24.24.0/24 , both got ROUTER GW as default router "today". I have installed 2xPfsense, plugged in this way OPT1 in 192.168

Re: [pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

I cannot do that, because the main infrastructured is already built-in. I mean 192.168.212.0/24 and 172.24.24.0/24, both got ROUTER GW as default router "today". I have installed 2xPfsense, plugged in this way OPT1 in 192.168.212.0/24 OPT2 in 172.24.24.0/24 We have leased a WAN Lin

Re: [pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

Evgeny Yurchenko wrote: Danny wrote: Hi, I'm trying to setup this: ___ () () ( inet )( inet ) ()

Re: [pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

Hi, Maybe It´s better try to explain the diagram a bit more. If my PC it´s in 192.168.212.0/24 network, my default gateway should be pfsense, but should take OPT2 as primary WAN If my PC it´s in 172.24.24.0/24 network, my default gateway should be pfsense, but should take OPT1 as primary WAN I

Re: [pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

Danny wrote: Hi, I'm trying to setup this: ___ () () ( inet )( inet ) ()

Re: [pfSense Support] PPTP Connected?

Tortise wrote: Hi Using 1.2.3-RELEASE (embedded) I have a PPTP server configured and I can connect remotely however I still cannot "connect" with anything on the LAN. I think the issue is the IP assigned to remote connections is remotely said to be 255.255.255.255 while the LAN is using 255

[pfSense Support] MultiWAN Failover via internal networks with WAN as secondary

Hi, I'm trying to setup this: ___ () () ( inet )( inet ) () (

Re: [pfSense Support] PPTP Connected?

- Original Message - From: "Chris Buechler" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] PPTP Connected? On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Tortise wrote: Hi Using 1.2.3-RELEASE (embedded) I have a PPTP server configured and I can connect remotely howeve

Re: [pfSense Support] PPTP Connected?

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Tortise wrote: > Hi > Using  1.2.3-RELEASE (embedded) I have a PPTP server configured and I can > connect remotely however I still cannot "connect" with anything on the LAN. >  I think the issue is the IP assigned to remote connections is remotely said > to be 255.

[pfSense Support] PPTP Connected?

Hi Using 1.2.3-RELEASE (embedded) I have a PPTP server configured and I can connect remotely however I still cannot "connect" with anything on the LAN. I think the issue is the IP assigned to remote connections is remotely said to be 255.255.255.255 while the LAN is using 255.255.255.0, the IP