On 12/10/2010 8:39 AM, Jim Pingle wrote:
On 12/10/2010 8:30 AM, Nicolas Roussi wrote:
During the disconnects I still have access to the admin gui of pfSense from a
wireless client but nowhere else. The only entry in the system logs is some ARP
messages that state that some MAC address changed
How about linking the AD leased IP Address against the logfiles?
--Curtis
On 11/19/2010 9:16 AM, Dominic wrote:
Hi All,
I am currently using pfSense 1.2.3 with Squid to provide browsing
access to users. Until now this has worked
perfectly and the Lightsquid package has been used for reporting
I have a DNS server behind a pfsense box. The dns forwarder is enabled
(I've tried disabling it.)
Without the forwarder, dns queries from behind the pfsense box don't
resolve, not ever.
With the forwarder dns queries resolve and the active directory works
fine as the windows servers forward a
On 9/2/2010 11:42 AM, Tim Dickson wrote:
Contacting you off the board, as I have questions about the "other" firewall
software you carry. What do you think of Vyatta and Untangled? I came from using
m0n0wall so naturally recommend pfSense to my clients, but wanted to know if you think
ei
On 9/1/2010 12:17 PM, Jeppe Øland wrote:
I did a similar speed upgrade to find my trusty old WRAP capped out at
like 15 mbit.
What I ended up getting was a mini-ITX enclosure/PSU:
http://www.mini-box.com/M350-enclosure-with-picoPSU-80-and-60W-adapter
Supermicro X7SPA-H motherboard (It's fanle
On 8/3/2010 11:15 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:22:41AM -0500, Karl Fife wrote:
We're going to build up just such a system in just a few months after we
close a couple of open projects. Has anyone done this already,& have
experience to share?
I'm running 3 pfSen
I already played with "prefer old IPSEC" on or off, but this seems not to help.
Keep in mind that all the end-nodes are dynamic ip's (and each and
every night at 4AM I let them restart the PPPoE at the end nodes)
I have a two part cron job. on an inside host I have a perl script that
check
Start with cost. There is no cost per seat with pfsense. You don't
have the up front cost of an expensive PIX or other Cisco Security
product plus the license fees. You don't pay extra for extra features
either.
It will run quite nicely on a dual core atom based supermicro server
from Ne
Would the mailing list admin please contact me off list please?
Thanks in advance,
Curtis Maurand
Check this one out. It should work just fine. Very inexpensive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816101262
Paul Mansfield wrote:
On 15/10/09 18:25, Ryan wrote:
Does anyone make an atom board with intel onboard. I'd rather intel if
i had my choice. I have seen a coupl
[snip]
you need only 2 tunnels for passing 2 subnets from one side to the other
I'm only passing one. and this dinky little config shouldn't need paid
support to happen.
[snip]
Even more of a reason to consider our offering. The offering is
there to help eliminate frustration and to offer the best support
possible.
Scott
I'm not sure $600.00 for a one time thing is worth it.
-
To unsubsc
[snip]
yes, exactly this way,
2 identical tunnels with different local/remote subnets...
Other settings are identical
a really impotant thing is, that the remote nets are different from
the liocal nets.
otherwise it get routing problems
Why do I need parallel tunnels when all I nee
Scott Ullrich wrote:
[snip]
If you are under those types of time constraints then you really
should consider our commercial support offering.
This shouldn't be that difficult. I've been doing this configuration on
an OpenRoute GT900 for over a year. I set it up in a couple of hours.
I se
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
Interesting. I had wished I could make that scenario work w/ipsec. Alas, no
joy. I had to set up a vyatta to do it and it worked flawlessly out of the
box. I didn't need a third NIC port to do it, either
I have configured 2 IPSEC-VPN-Tunnels between 2 Boxes for such a scenario.
Works like a charm.
michael
I had two subnets. I had machines on both subnets. The opt1 interface
could not be pinged and was generally dropping packets. If I can't
communicate locally with some sort of rel
Interesting. I had wished I could make that scenario work w/ipsec.
Alas, no joy. I had to set up a vyatta to do it and it worked
flawlessly out of the box. I didn't need a third NIC port to do it,
either. My thinking is that BSD doesn't handle virtual interfaces very
well. *sigh* I like
Tim Nelson wrote:
- "Curtis Maurand" wrote:
> have a public IP on em1
> I have a private IP on em2 (10.0.1.10/24)
> I have a private ip on OPT1 (10.201.17.1/28)
>
> Normally I would have the OPT interface in a DMZ, but constraints
aren't allowing me to do that
have a public IP on em1
I have a private IP on em2 (10.0.1.10/24)
I have a private ip on OPT1 (10.201.17.1/28)
Normally I would have the OPT interface in a DMZ, but constraints aren't
allowing me to do that so the OPT1 interface is also plugged in on the
local LAN as well.
I've assigned a s
Where can we make feature requests? I don't see anything on the
website about what on the roadmap or what's coming. I also can't seem
to find any decent documentation on the atrocious way it handles virtual
IP addresses. What I would rather see is virtual interfaces.
--Curtis
ong in the pfsense config or is pfsense not
capable of this arrangement? If its the latter, I understand and will
purchase another NIC to make it happen.
Thanks in advance,
Curtis Maurand
I've found that if you manually configure your (the pfsense) interface
connnected to a cisco switch to full duplex, the cisco will adjust. For
whatever reason, cisco switches tend to default to half duplex during
the negotiation. Go figure.
--Curtis Maurand
Head Honcho
Xyonet Web Ho
the last time I checked out the guts of a Cisco PIX, I found that it was
nothing more than commodity PC hardware with an Intel processor. I
don't know if that's changed, or not. BSD is very good a pushing
packets around and the middle of 11Gbps is 5.5Gbps and that's not far
off the number h
kup to the hardware router.
Note that I've been able to add a third network card and make it work that way,
but I was hoping that I wouldn't have to.
Thanks,
Curtis
Curtis Maurand
Head Honcho
Xyonet Webhosting Services
6 Evergreen Lane
Biddeford, ME 04005
http://www.xyone
nterface?
Thanks in advance,
Curtis Maurand
Curtis Maurand
Head Honcho
Xyonet Webhosting Services
6 Evergreen Lane
Biddeford, ME 04005
http://www.xyonet.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
207.252.7748
curtis, what was the previous setting?
sai
On 4/8/08, Curtis Maurand < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
The problem turned out to be packet state maintenance. I set it to "Keep State"
for all of my rules having to do with NAT and tunnels and it solved all of the
problems. It
Linksys has a couple of very nice models as does Adtran.
Curtis Maurand
Head Honcho
Xyonet Webhosting Services
6 Evergreen Lane
Biddeford, ME 04005
http://www.xyonet.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
207.252.7748
- Original Message -
From: "Paul M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
2003 Server
didn't seem to care about the setting.
Thank you to all who had suggestions on these two problems.
Sincerely,
Curtis Maurand
- Original Message -
From: "RB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:15:34 PM
I'll give that a try.
Thanks,
Curtis
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis LaMasters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:01:11 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] vista pptp client
Try this:
1) Open Command promp
llow PPTP to pass through.
Thanks,
Curtis
--
Curtis Maurand
Head Honcho
Xyonet Webhosting Services
6 Evergreen Lane
Biddeford, ME 04005
http://www.xyonet.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
207.252.7748
ty enhancements" on vista is the culprit.
but I don't have a copy to test with.
Curtis Maurand
Head Honcho
Xyonet Webhosting Services
6 Evergreen Lane
Biddeford, ME 04005
http://www.xyonet.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
207.252.7748
- Original Message -
From: &quo
PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Strange problem
On 3/18/08, Curtis Maurand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like I said, it works fine on the same hardware if I run Windows, but not if
> I run Linux. I've used IE and firefox on Windows, IE, firefox,
Like I said, it works fine on the same hardware if I run Windows, but not if I
run Linux. I've used IE and firefox on Windows, IE, firefox, epiphany and
konqueror on Linux. I wish I had a MAC to test with. :-(
Curtis
- Original Message -
From: "RB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: support@pf
. As my customer uses only Windows machines in the house it hasn't been
a problem. I do have a couple of wierd rules set up to give priority to VPN and
VOIP traffic.
Vista and PPTP is another topic. :-)
any help is apppreciated.
Thanks,
Curtis
--
Curtis Maurand
Head Honcho
Xyonet Web
e violently with each
other, resulting in extreme slow network and disk performance.
Disabling the bge NIC and replacing with an Intel server NIC PCI card
solved that nicely.
If you wait until monday I can let you know if the PE860 boots freebsd. :-)
--
Curtis Maurand
Senior Network &
happened in linux when adding/removing
> nics (and dmesg is useless when trying to figure out just what eth0
> actually is).
>
> --Bill
>
> ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands,
36 matches
Mail list logo
