On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Dimitri Rodis
dimit...@integritasystems.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Dimitri Rodis
dimit...@integritasystems.com wrote:
pfSense 2.0-BETA5 (i386) built on Wed Jan 19 12:45:14 EST 2011
When I try to use an alias in the Internal IP field
Hi,
I´ve got a 1.2.3 pfSense connected this way:
XP [LAN] PFSense [WAN] --- [WAN] Cisco router [LAN]
I can ping from XP to LAN and WAN pfsense interfaces, but cannot ping WAN
Cisco router interface
I can ping from PFSense WAN to Cisco WAN interface
Can not ping from XP to Cisco Router
I may not be the best person to comment on this, but have you enabled a rule
for your LAN interfaces to be able to talk with the WAN interface machines
(the Cisco router)? Bridging would fix this because the two interfaces would
essentially be bonded together. and wouldn't need a rule to enable
I have disable firewalling so i supposed no rules or NAT are applying
Under System \ Advanced i checked disable firewall
Disable all packet filtering.
Note: This converts pfSense into a routing only platform!
Note: This will turn off NAT!
In any case in both interfaces there any any permit
Have you configured the Cisco router with a static route to the XP's network?
Rgds,
On 2011-01-21, Danny metal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I´ve got a 1.2.3 pfSense connected this way:
XP [LAN] PFSense [WAN] --- [WAN] Cisco router [LAN]
I can ping from XP to LAN and WAN pfsense
Yes.
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FasthEthernet 0/0
Surprisingly, it started working without doing aparently nothing I will
recreate the situation again, because the environment is virtual pfsense,
virtual XP, with VMWare using GNS3... maybe that causes that weird
behaviour.
thanks a lot
Rgards
Op 21-1-2011 13:19, Danny schreef:
Yes.
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FasthEthernet 0/0
err, no, there should be route to the public netblock you are using on
the LAN behind pfsense, pointing to the WAN of pfSense which will be in
the Cisco LAN subnet.
Also note that Ciscos have really long arp
No. It´s working with that default route, Not necessary to route specific
LAN behind pfSense, and no I did not reboot the router
Thanks a lot
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Seth Mos seth@dds.nl wrote:
Op 21-1-2011 13:19, Danny schreef:
Yes.
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 FasthEthernet 0/0
Mmm... according to Cisco:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a00800ef7b2.shtml
you shouldn't do an ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 to an interface.
The page I linked above gives some explanations why. One key problem
is that with 0x8 to an interface, *all* addresses are
pfSense 2.0-BETA5 (i386) built on Wed Jan 19 12:45:14 EST 2011
I created a NAT rule with a linked firewall rule using a port alias that I
called OWA_PORTS. After creating the rule I decided to rename the port alias to
PORTS_WEBSERVER. When I did, the alias was renamed in the NAT rule properly,
On 1/21/2011 9:25 PM, DuWayne Odom wrote:
Better late than never... :-)
That change fixed the problem. Thanks for your response! I was almost on
the edge of giving up on pfsense.
As a side note: Shrewsoft has been a huge life saver for me as an IT
support person. It has allowed my co-workers
11 matches
Mail list logo
