Joyeux anniversaire M. Chris !
De Paris, France !!
;-)
A bit late, but better late than never !
Le 18 août 2011 à 07:18, Glenn Kelley a écrit :
> Happy Birthday Chris
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubs
You should use / have a look at QoS (aka Traffic Shaper)
This is how you'll achieve such a task.
Le 8 août 2011 à 02:45, Joseph Rotan a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have a pfsense 2.0 machine with 3 NIC ports a WAN interface, LAN inteface
> and OPT1 interface and would like to configure it so the b
Le 1 août 2011 à 14:54, Bart Grefte a écrit :
> Weird...
>
> What about http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=25413.0;prev_next=prev
> --> “Whew, got it to work now, by not choosing "Packet Mode" during the
> bootblock creation part of the installation.“
>
> Van: Nick Upson [mailto:n...@
Le 26 juil. 2011 à 19:48, Chris Brennan a écrit :
> Greetings! I've got a Netgate m1n1-2d13 firewall device[1] and for the most
> part, it works great (wired that is.) Wireless on the other hand is
> questionable at best. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The
> wireless kit is [2]. pfS
Le 26 juil. 2011 à 21:26, Jostein Elvaker Haande a écrit :
> Hello everyone,
>
> As the subject implies, I'm looking for a Mini PCIe based network card
> that is supported in pfSense 2.x that also supports multiple SSID's.
> Are there cards readily available, and if so, are there any
> recommanda
Hello,
I am planning to build a multi AP's WLAN (ESS).
Can this be achieved easily with pfSense ?
Knowing that we are looking at the classic features of such network:
1. Couple of AP's configured with the same SSID
2. Authentication
3. Security
4. Roaming between AP's
5. Communication be
Le 16 mai 2011 à 08:58, A Mohan Rao a écrit :
> u can come on chat Google chat) i will help u my best.. .
>
> mohanra...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Shibashish wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, A Mohan Rao wrote:
> yes very easy u can use acl its working fi
Le 29 avr. 2011 à 19:08, bsd a écrit :
> Le 29 avr. 2011 à 09:37, bsd a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have created a simple L7 container where I have put SIP and SkypeOut
>> traffic.
>>
>> Then created a Queue called VoIP where this traffic is s
Le 29 avr. 2011 à 09:37, bsd a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have created a simple L7 container where I have put SIP and SkypeOut
> traffic.
>
> Then created a Queue called VoIP where this traffic is supposed to end (HFSC
> with 10% reserved).
>
> Then two floating rule
Hi,
I have created a simple L7 container where I have put SIP and SkypeOut traffic.
Then created a Queue called VoIP where this traffic is supposed to end (HFSC
with 10% reserved).
Then two floating rule to put all traffic (TCP and UDP) in and selected the
VoIP L7 container I have created.
Hello,
At some point there were indication that Wireless AP roaming could be achieved
- at least It is achievable in FreeBSD - how about setting It up in pfSense ?
--> http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=174
Has anyone got any hints on this ?
Thanks.
––
Install the open VPN client package on 2.0 - two clicks and you're done !
Viscosity is your best bet.
So straightforward, your grandma could do It.
;-)
Le 11 avr. 2011 à 18:19, Vick Khera a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Paul Mather wrote:
> Has anyone managed to get IPsec for
Le 31 mars 2011 à 19:55, Vick Khera a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:56 PM, bsd wrote:
>> I am kind of stuck with a 1.2.3 to 2.0 upgrade on a 1Gb Alix CF card.
>> I wanted to know how long the upgrade process is supposed to last ?
>> … And if there is a way to import
Hi,
I am kind of stuck with a 1.2.3 to 2.0 upgrade on a 1Gb Alix CF card.
I wanted to know how long the upgrade process is supposed to last ?
… And if there is a way to import a 1.2.3 config in 2.0 ?
I have had no success importing the conf (simple install : LAN, WAN, WLAN,
couple of filteri
Hi,
I wanted to know if you had any idea about 3G / GSM NIC that would be
compatible with pfSense ?
How is 3G supposed to work with pfSense ?
Any pointer / study / comments will be welcome.
Thanks.
––
-> Grégory Bernard Director <---
VIPs dans même sous réseau que l’interface
ICMP
CARP
Oui
Oui
Oui
Oui
Nécessaire
Oui
Proxy ARP
Non
Oui
Oui
Non
Pas nécessaire
Non
Other
Non
Oui
Non
Non
Pas nécessaire
Non
IP Alias
Oui
Oui
Non
Non
Pas nécessaire
Oui
Le 17 mars 2011 à 13:34, Jim Pingle a écrit :
> On 3/17/2011 8:29 AM, bsd wrote
Ooops sorry,
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/What_are_Virtual_IP_Addresses%3F
Le 17 mars 2011 à 13:29, bsd a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to know what was the difference between IP Alias and Other in VIPs ?
> What does IP Alias do technically speaking ?
>
> It is no
Hi,
I wanted to know what was the difference between IP Alias and Other in VIPs ?
What does IP Alias do technically speaking ?
It is not very clear to me.
Thanks.
G.B.
––
-> Grégory Bernard Director <-
---> www.osne
Hello,
I have Squid / Squid Guard installed with version 2.0 of pfSense.
There are various post about "system optimization" for these packages.
Most of them are quoted here:
--> kern.ipc.nmbclusters=32768
--> vm.kmem_size="435544320"
--> vm.kmem_size_max="535544320"
--> kern.maxfiles="65536"
Le 12 janv. 2011 à 16:39, Jim Pingle a écrit :
> [please don't top post]
> On 1/12/2011 10:13 AM, bsd wrote:
>> Le 12 janv. 2011 à 13:53, Jim Pingle a écrit :
>>
>>> On 1/12/2011 5:48 AM, bsd wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I
Ok,
Thanks very much.
I didn't manage to get It working with the provided command line, got a
Badly placed ()'s.
… Anyway I have managed to get It decoded and working ok.
Thanks.
Le 12 janv. 2011 à 13:53, Jim Pingle a écrit :
> On 1/12/2011 5:48 AM, bsd wrote:
>>
Hello,
I am trying to import a Shared Key from a previous XML file, It looks like the
key found in the XML file can not be directly copy / pasted in the shared key
box.
Do you know what I have to "cut out" to make It work ?
The key looks similar as this one :
LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBPcGVuVlBOIFN0Y
Hello,
I have found this useful post about setting up a bridge in pfSense and have
translated It in French :
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,20917.0.html
http://www.osnet.eu/fr/content/pfsense-v20-dhcp-et-bridge
I have one more question regarding the way things "should be done" in a
I think we are getting closer to solving this issue…
I am putting pressure on the manufacturer of these devices so they can give us
more info. I've copied recent messages from the list, hopping this could help
them.
But at this stage I don't really know what would really help us solve the issu
Hello Gavin,
From my point of view (and as far as I am informed) you will have to build your
own LCD driver.
As a reseller of this hardware, I was in touch with the manufacturer, and I
think you will have to use the provided C program and example (provided with
the driver CD) in order to bui
But how can It be detected if it hasn't got the right drivers ?
Aren't the drivers included in the package I have sent as an attachment ?
Is only being able to communicate with this serial port enough ?
Le 10 nov. 2010 à 11:31, Seth Mos a écrit :
> Op 10-11-2010 10:39, bsd schr
Hello,
I am reselling the same unit on my website.
I am an official pfSense reseller and have tested and validate this unit…
http://www.osnet.eu/en/content/firewall-fwa-3035s
There is also the very good :
http://www.osnet.eu/en/content/firewall-fwa-3035l
You can use both embedded or full
gt;
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pfsense.com
>
> Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
>
Gregober --->
Le 7 sept. 2010 à 22:14, Chris Buechler a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:24 PM, bsd wrote:
>>
>> My main question is why when filtering is enabled do we loose 75% of the
>> throughput…
>>
>> Is this normal figures or not ?
>>
>
> Filtering
k you.
Le 7 sept. 2010 à 11:15, Paul Mansfield a écrit :
> On 06/09/10 21:58, bsd wrote:
>> I have made a simple configuration which looks like that :
>>
>> Station_1 <<< WAN >>> pfSense_FW <<< LAN >>> Station_2
>
> it'd be int
ery far from beeing
saturated, It is in fact not impacted at all by these tests.
I was wondering if this is normal ?
Is there any settings I might optimize somewhere ?
Le 4 sept. 2010 à 18:27, Chris Buechler a écrit :
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:58 AM, bsd wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands,
gt; Service link, in case there is an interest:
> http://www.shaw.ca/en-ca/ProductsServices/Internet/Nitro/
>
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
-
g rotation principle…
I am asking that because for legal purposes some of these clients have to keep
a minimum of 1 or 2 years of log archive.
Thanks for your support.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bs
be the consequences ?
Thanks.
Le 24 juin 2010 à 22:42, bsd a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to install pfSense on a new device with a SATA disk.
>
> I am trying to install a toshiba HD on an appliance, the Toshiba is a
> MK2565GSX of 250GB described
> here:http://www3.to
What would be your advise?
Is there any way for me to correct the 488397168 into 488397167
Any idea what is precisely going wrong?
Thank you very much.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
b
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:23 AM, bsd wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I am looking for a guide or an answer that could help me to understand how
>> pfSense is architectured in term of directory (FreeBSD level)…
>>
>> The goal of this question is to be able
.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: sup
space" partition using DOS Label
Once you have done that you can then start using your disk properly and install
whatever you want on It.
Thx.
Le 19 mars 2010 à 15:29, bsd a écrit :
> Hello,
>
> I am bumping into an install problem due to bsdlabel command not beeing able
>
ort.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail: support-h...@pf
hanks.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
P "Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
e-mail"
---
suggestion ?
What are your advise ?
Thanks.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
P "Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing t
.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
P "Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this
e-mail"
-
To unsubscribe,
:
http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/ep80579/index.htm?iid=ipp_embed+proc_EP80579_proc
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
P "Please consider your environmental responsibi
version to the full version in order to have the same console
behavior on full install?
Thank you very much.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
P "Please co
This is really a weird setting!
You are using a board that has been created and design to work with
Compact Flash.
I think It is a bit "strange" to try to use It with an IDE drive.
I would suggest that you use an embedded image as described in here:
http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=472
Then you c
, 2009 at 1:24 PM, bsd...@gmail.com
wrote:
hi,
first, i am a little confused at the versions of pfsense. currently
i'm
running pfsense 1.2.3-RC1 built back in April of 09. it's not clear
to me
where the 1.2.3 branch stands or what is the latest version of
1.2.3 that i
should
hi,
first, i am a little confused at the versions of pfsense. currently i'm
running pfsense 1.2.3-RC1 built back in April of 09. it's not clear to me
where the 1.2.3 branch stands or what is the latest version of 1.2.3 that i
should be running.
secondly, my pfsense(1.2.3-RC1) has RIP enabled and
ience feed-back is also very welcome.
Thanks for your support.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
P "Please consider your environmental responsibility before p
Last minute update!
Since yesterday and the release of zabbix-1.6_1,1 the problems
described here under have been patched and corrected.
Only problem is if you activate the "jabber media type" in the options.
So this is quite good news.
Le 7 janv. 09 à 12:12, bsd a écrit :
firewall is configured as a "transparent" filtering bridge.
This means that the IPs will also have to be available on the LAN if.
Any clue on how to realize that will be welcome.
Thanks for your support.
Gregober ---> PGP ID -->
d be nice, but
our extensive experience evaluating Zabbix led us to the conclusion
that it's not ready for prime time.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
P
ahh, i see now.
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Dimitri Rodis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How long will pfSense hold onto the states required to maintain a tcp
connection/udp "session", and can this be changed?
It seems like connections on
go to 'systems' , 'advanced functions', and check out: Firewall
Optimization Options. you can change the timing there.
i'm not sure as to the exact timing. i believe this has to do with
freebsd's implementation of tcp/ip??
-phil
On Nov 18, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Dimitri Rodis wrote:
How lo
properly - I don't want to NAT anything just filter packets to my
server that will be using "public IPs".
Thanks for your support.
Gregober ---> PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD
bsd @at@ todoo.biz
¯¯
Which is probably why I haven't seen it since upgrading :)
-Phil G
On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:03 AM, "Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 10/28/08, Ian Levesque <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I'm running 1.2.1-RC1 (built on Sat Sep 13 03:53:42 EDT 2008).
After about
10 days o
Not that this helps but I have seen what you describe only while
running in a VM Ware environment.
-Phil G
On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Ian Levesque <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hello,
I'm running 1.2.1-RC1 (built on Sat Sep 13 03:53:42 EDT 2008). After
about 10 days of uptime, I not
To bad it's for v10.5 only.
-Phil G
On Oct 25, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Paul M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
on OpenVPN from home - using Tunnelblick on my DSL (6mbit down
768 up).
OT: we've started switching Mac OSX users to viscosity, much
nicer/easier to use - a proper OSX application instead
here's a thought, you could setup iperf on your src machine and pfsense.
then ssh into the pfsense box and see what speeds your actually getting.
that way you will at least know if it's openvpn or not.
-phil
On Oct 24, 2008, at 4:29 PM, JJB wrote:
Your architecture is somewhat unclear - d
static routes.
Unless there's some very specific reason for needing the encryption.
-Gary
BSD Wiz wrote:
it's on my corporate network, both wan interfaces of the pfsense
box are on the same private ip subnet. we built 2 labs using
pfsense and now we want to connect the two labs. i h
ve several site to
site vpn's over the internet up and running and never had any
problems with them but i can't get this lan setup to work. so if i
know it's should work i'll keep playing with it.
thanks,
-phil
On Oct 14, 2008, at 4:30 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
O
So your saying that the wan interfaces on the boxes need diff subnets?
-Phil G
On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:49 PM, "Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With 1.2 is it possible to connect to pfs
To be clear, both boxes lans are different subnet of course but the
WANs are on the same subnets.
-Phil G
On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:49 PM, "Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With 1.2 is it
With 1.2 is it possible to connect to pfsense boxes on the same subnet
via an ipsec tunnel? Both boxes wan interfaces are private ip's.
Thanks
-Phil
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-ma
sites with no problems.
thanks,
-phil
On Oct 9, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:44 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so your telling me that 3 hosts machines on my network running mac
OS 10.4
and 10.5 tcp/ip stack is messed up?
That would appea
so your telling me that 3 hosts machines on my network running mac OS
10.4 and 10.5 tcp/ip stack is messed up?
On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:01 AM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
going back a few weeks ago when i posted my issues gett
going back a few weeks ago when i posted my issues getting to
subaru.com.. i came across another site that i could not get to
behind pfsense(cisco.com).
i installed squid proxy and then i was able to get to subaru.com and
cisco.com
to refresh your memory, there are no rules blocking traffic
to ExternalIP:13389 -> forwarded to Host B:3389
Ist possible through the port-forward tab in NAT Rules
cheers
michael
2008/10/8 BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Damn, I was afraid of that.
-Phil G
On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:36 PM, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so user A can connect to
Damn, I was afraid of that.
-Phil G
On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:36 PM, RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so user A can connect to host A behind pfsense box via port 3389
and user B
can connect to host B via port 3389 behind the pfsense firewall and
so on
and so forth.
what should be my approach?
Sorry, didn't mean to come off like an a-hole.
-Phil G
On Oct 3, 2008, at 10:43 AM, "Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:06 AM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And how could the dev team implement a fix if we don't know the
And how could the dev team implement a fix if we don't know the
specifics of the exploit? This will be something that the freebsd dev
team will need to fix and I'm sure they will asap.
-Phil G
On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:57 AM, "Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've read a lot about how
Yes, according to Robert Lee all versions of BSD including freebsd are
affected. And they say going to ipv6 makes it even more vulnerable.
-Phil G
On Oct 3, 2008, at 9:57 AM, "Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've read a lot about how windows and linux are vul
ump on the WAN
and see what hits it...
Tim Nelson
Systems/Network Engineer
Rockbochs Inc.
(218)727-4332 x105
- "Paul Mansfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BSD Wiz wrote:
Yep. Tcpdump. Traffic doesn't come back from fw.
-Phil G
so, the firewall is passing the traff
No, the firewall does not pass the traffic.
-Phil G
On Oct 2, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Paul Mansfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BSD Wiz wrote:
Yep. Tcpdump. Traffic doesn't come back from fw.
-Phil G
so, the firewall is passing the traffic, web server responds but the
originating
pppoe and see if that fixes the problem.
> > I was having the same problems with mail.yahoo/hotmail/msn
messenger
> > and some other sites on one installation and that fixed it.
> > I think its worth a try.
> >
> > Other than that it might be a timestamp handling issue
to open the site.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:38 AM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i know, i just want to check out the new wrx's and sti!!
tried messing with the mtu without any luck.
ok, here is tcpdump running on my pfsense firewall(unixbox.gnet).
you can
see my request to su
I never get a response from the firewall therefore I cannot connect
via telnet over port 80. Telneting to the site from the de works but
not from the client machine.
-Phil G
On Oct 2, 2008, at 4:14 AM, Paul Mansfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
try doing "telnet subaru.com 80", then "GET
No, there are not any drops in the logs.
-Phil G
On Oct 2, 2008, at 1:02 AM, "Chris Buechler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:38 AM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i know, i just want to check out the new wrx's and sti!!
tried messi
:12 PM, Chris Buechler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:55 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yep, i looked at it using tcpdump. i just see syn packets going
out the
door, i never get any syn-acks back.
22:50:47.417326 IP unixbox.gnet.49330 > subaru
hler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah, 1.2 doesn't work either. the problem does in fact appear to
only
affect certain hosts as other machines on my network can reach the
site.
specifically, an iphone and freebsd server
no, macs, 10.4 and 10.5 tried it on both, neither works.
-phil
On Oct 1, 2008, at 10:27 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:18 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah, 1.2 doesn't work either. the problem does in fact appear to
only affect certain hos
yeah, 1.2 doesn't work either. the problem does in fact appear to
only affect certain hosts as other machines on my network can reach
the site. specifically, an iphone and freebsd server.
-phil
On Oct 1, 2008, at 10:04 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:23 PM, BS
do you guys think i should revert back to version 1.2 and test it?
-phil
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Tim Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Are you blocking any ICMP traffic? PMTU (MTU path discovery)
relies on ICMP to automagically deter
.. :-)
Tim Nelson
Systems/Network Engineer
Rockbochs Inc.
(218)727-4332 x105
- "BSD Wiz" wrote:
>
sure, but i'm not filtering traffic on port 80 by IP and all www
traffic seems to work fine. please let me know if you prefer this
an another format.
>
this has me stumped...
>
>
thanks!
>
-phil
>
>
here's the WAN Rules;
>
>
s in your state table when users on the lan try to go to
the site?
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:29 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i can only telnet to port 80 from the pfsense box. i cannot telnet
from my mach
yourself by bypassing the firewall.
Adam
BSD Wiz wrote:
logging is already turned on for the drop all rule. it doesn't
show anything getting blocked when i go to subaru.com.
let me try the any to any rule.
thanks!
-phil
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Tim Nelson wrote:
And a big '
i can only telnet to port 80 from the pfsense box. i cannot telnet
from my machines on the lan.
if i try and ping subaru.com it resolves to 67.202.194.73 but it
seems that they drop ICMP traffic.
thanks,
-phil
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Curtis LaMasters wrote:
Can you telnet to port 80
logging is already turned on for the drop all rule. it doesn't show
anything getting blocked when i go to subaru.com.
let me try the any to any rule.
thanks!
-phil
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:19 PM, Tim Nelson wrote:
And a big 'Sorry' to the list for not removing that huge chunk of
XML from my
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Can't connect to subaru.com on port 80
It may be helpful to see your rulesets on your LAN and WAN
interfaces... or paste the pertinent XML from your config file..
Tim Nelson
Systems/Network Engineer
Rockbochs Inc.
(218)727-4332 x105
- "BSD Wiz&qu
helpful to see your rulesets on your LAN and WAN
interfaces... or paste the pertinent XML from your config file..
Tim Nelson
Systems/Network Engineer
Rockbochs Inc.
(218)727-4332 x105
- "BSD Wiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i'm connected via cable modem, mtu is set to
i'm connected via cable modem, mtu is set to 1500.
thanks
-phil
On Oct 1, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:18 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
pfSense 1.2.1 RC1
only add-on package installed is iperf.
I have rules to allow allow traffic
pfSense 1.2.1 RC1
only add-on package installed is iperf.
I have rules to allow allow traffic out on port 80 and 443. I have
also(just to be sure) allowed *ALL* traffic out from my static ip on
my macbook. Problem is I can't get to the site subaru.com.
I don't see anything in the logs and I
Amen.
-phil
On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:22 PM, RB wrote:
As Pfsense is derived from Monowall and monowall has recently, in
the
1.3beta12, incorporated ipv6, I was wondering how difficult it is
going to
be to port the changes in monowall to pfsense?
This question comes back up every few month
Yep, I see that. My bad.
Thanks!
-Phil G
On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Angelo Turetta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
BSD Wiz wrote:
yep, that is how i created the rule, on the WAN interface and so
far so good. i've made about 20 calls and none of them failed so
we'
yep, that is how i created the rule, on the WAN interface and so far
so good. i've made about 20 calls and none of them failed so we're
looking good...
thanks!
-phil
On Sep 6, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Bill Marquette wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 3:52 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECT
i should enable static nat on the interface that my voip router is
on, which is my dmz correct?
thanks,
On Sep 6, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:23 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
after doing considerable research with tcpdump on my WAN int
a 1:1 NAT using YOUR external IP, not the IP of the
service (ie. 216.181.136.7 in your example below should be whatever
your external IP is, not that of Lingo). The internal is still
10.0.0.1 (assuming that's your internal machine doing Lingo VOIP).
--Bill
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:17 PM, BSD W
below should be whatever
your external IP is, not that of Lingo). The internal is still
10.0.0.1 (assuming that's your internal machine doing Lingo VOIP).
--Bill
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:17 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
man O man still getting blocked,
tried calling my Vo
ternal is still
10.0.0.1 (assuming that's your internal machine doing Lingo VOIP).
--Bill
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:17 PM, BSD Wiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
man O man still getting blocked,
tried calling my VoIP phone from my cell phone and the traffic was
blocked
again by
a 1:1 NAT using YOUR external IP, not the IP of the
service (ie. 216.181.136.7 in your example below should be whatever
your external IP is, not that of Lingo). The internal is still
10.0.0.1 (assuming that's your internal machine doing Lingo VOIP).
--Bill
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:17 PM,
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
