Re: Can you open a bug ticket at http://cvstrac.pfsense.org with specific
steps on replicating the problem?
---
Yes, I've been working towards producing an MFE (minimal faulty example).
Think I have it, (hopefully) just need a final "QA" pass. If that's it,
then it looks like it's related to havin
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Bryan Derman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Re: There is nothing in your config that requires AON, ...
> ---
> You're correct. It was "historical*" and I've now
> reduced/fixed/tested/deployed the config:
> Now: http://www.derman.com/Misc/router/pfSenseReduced.html
>
Re: There is nothing in your config that requires AON, ...
---
You're correct. It was "historical*" and I've now
reduced/fixed/tested/deployed the config:
Now: http://www.derman.com/Misc/router/pfSenseReduced.html
Previously: http://www.derman.com/Misc/router/pfSense.html
However, if one _was_ us
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:27 AM, B Derman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> QUESTION:
> I've always assumed that Manual Outbound NAT rules are applied in the
> top-to-bottom order they are listed via Firewall -> NAT -> Outbound but,
> given some of the strange routing behaviors I get when I turn off som
QUESTION:
I've always assumed that Manual Outbound NAT rules are applied in the
top-to-bottom order they are listed via Firewall -> NAT -> Outbound but,
given some of the strange routing behaviors I get when I turn off some of
the WANs, I'm wondering whether that's a valid assumption ... is it/are
