On 05.10.10 20:43, Adam Thompson wrote:
(On an unrelated note - anyone know why I can't send emails to this list
from my BlackBerry? Works for other mailman-managed lists elsewhere...)
As I remember this is not mailman. It is ezmlm. And I cannot send mails
from my regular account too.
On 16.09.10 21:40, Jim Pingle wrote:
And IIRC if the card has any kind of built-in wear
leveling, it will extend the life of the card to 8 times what it would
have otherwise been.
This calculation is IMHO a bit too optimistic. I think wear levelling
works with some percentage, maybe 5 or 10%
On 09.09.10 16:18, Michel Servaes wrote:
What could be the cause here ? Should I install an UPS... or should I
buy better CF-cards ?
As long You use the CF read-only I am pretty shure there is another
problem...
-
To
On 17.08.2010 13:23, Paul Cockings wrote:
Hi Pfsense folk,
I am slightly confused about VLAN support on Alix board. I'm
considering an Alix 2D3 LX800
(http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=12647) + Pfsense for a small
project
2D3 with 1.2.3 rel no problem here...
On 16.04.10 20:48, R. Th. Boots wrote:
Hello,
I known I have been asking this before, but as my provider has started
a pilot with native ipv6 over adsl, I was wondering what the current
status is regarding ipv6 support.
Take a look over to m0n0wall http://m0n0.ch it has a new version from
Does anybody think it'd be worthwhile to submit that as a patch?
Or would someone like to see it otherwise (small enough even
for posting on the list, perhaps - 105 line context diff)?
Maybe this could help too: I Found this article because this Guy wanted
to add IPv6 stuff to the Rules.
Paul Cockings wrote:
Take a look at ZyXEL P660R
http://www.zyxel.co.uk/web/product_family_detail.php?PC1indexflag=20040812093058CategoryGroupNo=C8A3A230-907F-4CA8-9C3B-3A84F5A06405
Uhh..
If I see the picture of these hardware...
Some of the cheaper Zyxels have fixed subnetmasks, no joke. Be
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 encapsulation.
Scott Ullrich wrote:
Chris summed this up quite well but we cannot just half ass implement
IPv6. It requires a real testing environment and a lot of work to
implement it fully vs. doing it for just most of us needs.
I think we all appreciate the quality oriented development.
But for
Scott Ullrich wrote:
And no, a proxy is not an option.
Why ?
what is the difference for the firewalling stuff? The Protocol is
interesting. Most of us need a IPv6 Ruleset, radvd/rtadvd and a 4in6
Tunnel. That's what i am doing on a FreeBSD-Box behind my IPv4 Gateway
(pfSense).
For many
RB wrote:
This question comes back up every few months, and every time I wonder:
what is the justification case for IPv6?
Maybe it's the simple argument:
Jump on the Train!!!
Hype or not, IPv6 is coming. Let the we get out of IP's yells beside
this time.
It's like talk about that a
better than switch to
bridge mode, because there is no more control over the router via SNMP,
Pings, Management and more.
This should work with other routers, with different naming for NAT.
Beat Siegenthaler
-
To unsubscribe, e
Jan Zorz wrote:
What I see from changes, only basiv tunneling is implemented. What we
need is also stateless autoconfiguration daemon (radvd), statefull
autoconfig support (dhcpv6), full graphical config support (interfaces
IP-s, rules definitions, etc...), OSPFv6, DNS tip or trick daemon
A bit Off-Topic...
You can find no Information about DNS-Cache Poisoning at ZyXEL's
Website. As manufacturer of NAT-Serializers this is poor behavior.
Not for old and probably not patchable Routers nor the Information that
maybe newer Products can solve this issue.
Does somebody know a
Chris Buechler wrote:
How is your outbound NAT configured? Even static port won't rewrite
the source ports to something incremental, it just retains whatever
the source port is.
Automatic outbound NAT rule generation (IPsec passthrough)
Auto created rule for LAN Static Port NO
Port
Chris Buechler wrote:
No, pf has randomized source ports on all NATed TCP and UDP traffic for
8 years. I was surprised to find out that's the exception rather than
the norm. Cisco, Checkpoint, amongst numerous others apparently do not
randomize source ports on NATed traffic.
I am not
Tim Dickson wrote:
Could it be your ISPs DNS that is bad? (that pfSense is relaying?) and not
pfSense directly?
-Tim
Same Server behind pfSense and dd-wrt does differ sightly:
The server runs patched [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No ISP DNS, my own Server. Official DNS for my domains. In my DMZ.
Chris Buechler wrote:
And it does recursive queries, does not rely on upstream servers? Are
you running with static port enabled? That's the only way your source
ports aren't going to be randomized, assuming the server is NATed and
not just firewalled. Static port disables the source port
Beat Siegenthaler wrote:
And I think it is not really a big problem as long the transaction ID's
are really good random.
Curiosity killed the Cat:
done a dump on pfSense at the dmz-side. It looks that the source ports
from BIND are very good in random. But at the wan-side, the ports
Bill Marquette wrote:
Shouldn't make a difference if the source port is getting nat'd
sequentially. That sounds a little odd to me, but I can check that
out when I get home and see if I can duplicate. Can you send me
whatever test script you are using? Thanks
I use the Link:
Ermal Luçi wrote:
Are you by any chance running the traffic shaper on the atheros interface?
If yes, disabling it does help anyhow?
This makes a very big difference. The mbuf counter does now show a
normal behavior.
175/350/525 mbufs in use (current/cache/total)
even with Zattoo and
Ermal Luçi wrote:
Is it usable now apart the ath errors?!
Meaning it does not disconnect and weird behaviour.
Absolute! :-)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Gerber wrote:
ALIX board (latest bios installed) using either CM9 or wlm54abg 200mW as
wireless card with 2 antenna setup. Installed on Microdrive using
embedded kernel but else writable setup.
Played with sysctl settings to no avail.
In errors stilll here after playing with the
Chris Buechler wrote:
It could also be interference, and potentially other things as well.
Run athstats at a command prompt or the command page and you may get
some helpful info.
pfsense:~# athstats 2
input output altrate shortlong xretry crcerr crypt phyerr
rssi rate
0
sysctl dev.ath shows:
pfsense:~# sysctl dev.ath
dev.ath.0.txantenna: 0
dev.ath.0.rxantenna: 1
pfsense:~# sysctl dev.ath.0.rxantenna=0
dev.ath.0.rxantenna: 2 - 0
What? I thought it was 1 ?
and now? what shows sysctl?
pfsense:~# sysctl dev.ath
dev.ath.0.txantenna: 0
dev.ath.0.rxantenna: 2
tester wrote:
Hello,
How can I backup RRD graph data? I don't want to lost
statistics about traffic (sent/received data)
exchanged in these months and so on.
I have a script that runs daily via cron anyway:
pfsense:/var/log# cat /scripts/save_rrd.sh
#!/bin/sh
/etc/rc.conf_mount_rw
# Save
Hi,
I have a WRAP, run 1.2 and observe this problem for months.
Have 3 different atheros minipci cards cm9-gp wlm54g and wlm54agp23 with
2 antenna setup. Normally there are around 6 errs/s inbound on this
card. Interesting is that under heavy load this value goes down.
From time to time, the
27 matches
Mail list logo
