On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, David Rees wrote:
>
>> There are some foot shooting possibilities if you aren't careful.
>
> Any details on those?
>
Binding to things that local services would bind to, and then those
fail to start.
> Hmm, if I just submit a patch which addresses #1931 and keeps
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:54 PM, David Rees wrote:
>> OK - I guess what I'm asking is this:
>>
>> I've just checked my particular pfSense box and aside from the nearly
>> 1000 ports it's listening to from 19000+ for my NAT reflection rules,
>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:54 PM, David Rees wrote:
>
> OK - I guess what I'm asking is this:
>
> I've just checked my particular pfSense box and aside from the nearly
> 1000 ports it's listening to from 19000+ for my NAT reflection rules,
> is there anything else keeping us from using a wider port
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Rees wrote:
>> I've recently run into the issue described on ticket #1931 and on the
>> forum thread below:
>>
>> http://cvstrac.pfsense.org/tktview?tn=1931
>> http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,16
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Rees wrote:
> I've recently run into the issue described on ticket #1931 and on the
> forum thread below:
>
> http://cvstrac.pfsense.org/tktview?tn=1931
> http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,16314.0.html
>
> Even though we only have about 200 port forward
I've recently run into the issue described on ticket #1931 and on the
forum thread below:
http://cvstrac.pfsense.org/tktview?tn=1931
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,16314.0.html
Even though we only have about 200 port forwards, we have 6 local
interfaces so we've quickly run into this li
