Il giorno 02/set/2011, alle ore 17.51, Jim Pingle ha scritto:
On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Giacomo Di Ciocco wrote:
Hello everyone,
please consider this scenario: http://www.deffie.it/garbage/theproblem.png
Servers are reaching the internet from their public IP in the /26 and
they have PFSense
Hello everyone,
please consider this scenario: http://www.deffie.it/garbage/theproblem.png
Servers are reaching the internet from their public IP in the /26 and
they have PFSense /26 IP as their default route, this is ok.
Users from LAN are reaching the internet with the PFSense IP in the /30
On 9/2/2011 11:17 AM, Giacomo Di Ciocco wrote:
Hello everyone,
please consider this scenario: http://www.deffie.it/garbage/theproblem.png
Servers are reaching the internet from their public IP in the /26 and
they have PFSense /26 IP as their default route, this is ok.
Users from LAN are
Hello List :)
I'm looking to do some equal cost multipath routing (I want to balance
our outgoing traffic over multiple ADSL links). Our provider splits
all data coming in down all the lines we have so we are receiving
faster down speed. They support uplink balancing but we have to set up
our end
On 10/15/10 8:12 PM, li...@mgreg.com wrote:
Hi All,
Having a bit of a problem wrapping my head around a particular network setup.
Basically the scenario is as follows:
-- 1 ISP (Cable Internet Provider)
-- 5 Available static IPs
-- 1 Cable Modem
-- 1 Generic PC with 2 NICs (running
li...@mgreg.com wrote:
Hi All,
Having a bit of a problem wrapping my head around a particular network setup.
Basically the scenario is as follows:
-- 1 ISP (Cable Internet Provider)
-- 5 Available static IPs
-- 1 Cable Modem
-- 1 Generic PC with 2 NICs (running pfSense)
-- 1 Gigabit
From: li...@mgreg.com
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:47:51 -0400
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Routing Multiple Static IPs
On Oct 16, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Lyle Giese wrote:
li...@mgreg.com wrote:
Hi All,
Having a bit of a problem wrapping my head around
Hi All,
Having a bit of a problem wrapping my head around a particular network setup.
Basically the scenario is as follows:
-- 1 ISP (Cable Internet Provider)
-- 5 Available static IPs
-- 1 Cable Modem
-- 1 Generic PC with 2 NICs (running pfSense)
-- 1 Gigabit Switch with 20+ PCs connected
I have 2 things I want to accomplish.
1. I got my block of IP's from ARIN and I've plugged in our bandwidth
provider. So now what ;) Do I need an IP form them to setup on that
interface, and then setup my /22 on the inside of my box? Some pointers
to get me started would be great. How do
I have 2 facilities that used to be connected via an IPSec VPN
Facility 1 had 2 networks 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.1.0/24. They are both on the
same physical wire, they each have their own NIC in pfSense box. Users were
either one or the other with a couple of people being dual homed on both.
Now
On 09/05/2010 11:23 PM, Ron Lemon wrote:
I have 2 facilities that used to be connected via an IPSec VPN
Facility 1 had 2 networks 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.1.0/24. They are both
on the same physical wire, they each have their own NIC in pfSense
box. Users were either one or the other with a
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments.
[cid:image001.jpg@01CB4D25.FDDB2F80]
From: Hans Maes [mailto:h...@bitnet.be]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 6:02 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Routing Issue
On 09/05/2010
Maes [mailto:h...@bitnet.be]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 6:02 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Routing Issue
On 09/05/2010 11:23 PM, Ron Lemon wrote:
I have 2 facilities that used to be connected via an IPSec VPN
Facility 1 had 2 networks 10.0.0.0/24 and 10.0.1.0/24
We'd like to setup a redundant carp configuration for a couple of
routing box with pfsense.
Each of two has a dedicated IP on WAN side, and a dedicated IP on
routing interface (here are connected other routers and firewalls).
Of course, there is a common virtual IP for each side (WAN and
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Trevor Benson tben...@a-1networks.comwrote:
Had the same issue you describe, as I have multiple ranges at my office
that I connect to from my home network.
I started to dump traffic on both firewalls enc0 interface, and the network
traffic that works appears
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Yehuda Katz yeh...@ymkatz.net wrote:
Sounds to me like a NAT Reflection issue
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Oliver Hansen oliver.han...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris Buechler cbuech...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at
Had the same issue you describe, as I have multiple ranges at my office that I
connect to from my home network.
I started to dump traffic on both firewalls enc0 interface, and the network
traffic that works appears on both interfaces. The ICMP traffic that does not
reach the other end does
I have hub and spoke VPN network setup. 192.168.1.0/24 is the hub (central
office) and 192.168.x.0/24 are all the spokes (remote offices). These are
all connected with IPSEC VPN connections running a mix of linksys vpn
routers and pfSense 1.2.3-RC3. The problem I am having is related to two
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Oliver Hansen oliver.han...@gmail.com wrote:
I have hub and spoke VPN network setup. 192.168.1.0/24 is the hub (central
office) and 192.168.x.0/24 are all the spokes (remote offices). These are
all connected with IPSEC VPN connections running a mix of linksys
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris Buechler cbuech...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Oliver Hansen oliver.han...@gmail.com
wrote:
--snip--
Just last week, I set up a second VPN tunnel between the two routers.
This
one has the destination subnet of
Sounds to me like a NAT Reflection issue
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Oliver Hansen oliver.han...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Chris Buechler cbuech...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Oliver Hansen oliver.han...@gmail.com
wrote:
--snip--
I have multiple DSL lines, but they all have the same GW. I am not load
balancing, but just want to route VOIP over one, and Internet traffic
over the other.
When I try to select FW rules to route voip ports out over 1 of the
GW's, it always selects the primary GW. Any way to resolve this
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Chris Flugstad ch...@cascadelink.com wrote:
I have multiple DSL lines, but they all have the same GW. I am not load
balancing, but just want to route VOIP over one, and Internet traffic over
the other.
When I try to select FW rules to route voip ports out
I'm having a routing issue with a new double pfSense setup I have
configured.
Here is a diagram of the setup:
http://tinyurl.com/mqko87
Both of the firewalls are pfSense 1.2.3-RC1 from the live-CD
They each have 4 interfaces.
Everything is working fine except for the following.
I have two
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Richard Amermanfi...@7technw.com wrote:
I'm having a routing issue with a new double pfSense setup I have
configured.
Here is a diagram of the setup:
http://tinyurl.com/mqko87
Both of the firewalls are pfSense 1.2.3-RC1 from the live-CD
They each have 4
Hi guys,
I just setup 4 new vlans on pfsense and my switches. Clients on the
new vlans can talk to their gateway (the pfsense interface) and hosts
on the Internet. However, I would like to allow 2 of the vlans to
route back and forth to each other. I can't seem to get this to work.
For example,
Jesse Vollmar wrote:
Hi guys,
I just setup 4 new vlans on pfsense and my switches. Clients on the
new vlans can talk to their gateway (the pfsense interface) and hosts
on the Internet. However, I would like to allow 2 of the vlans to
route back and forth to each other. I can't seem to get this
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Evgeny Yurchenkoevg.yu...@rogers.com wrote:
May we see ifconifg and netstat -rn ?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail:
Okay I deleted that vlan and now there is a system error and the web gui
doesn't work. I'm on my phone now (no internet from pfsense). The error is
xml error: opt cannot occur more than once. I opened a shell and then
opened config.xml and it has a opt entry... I don't know how to edit
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Jesse Vollmarvollm...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay I deleted that vlan and now there is a system error and the web gui
doesn't work. I'm on my phone now (no internet from pfsense). The error is
xml error: opt cannot occur more than once. I opened a shell and then
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Scott Ullrichsullr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Jesse Vollmarvollm...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay I deleted that vlan and now there is a system error and the web gui
doesn't work. I'm on my phone now (no internet from pfsense). The error is
Scott Ullrich wrote:
I just fixed this bug a few days ago.
Does this mean that we can safely delete vlans using gui?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: support-unsubscr...@pfsense.com
For additional commands, e-mail:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Bennett Lee
pfse...@bennettandgina.com wrote:
How can I route multiple subnets across the same IPSEC tunnel?
You can't in 1.2.x. Solution here:
http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/IPSec_with_Multiple_Subnets
Bennett Lee wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Bennett Lee
pfse...@bennettandgina.com wrote:
How can I route multiple subnets across the same IPSEC tunnel?
You can't in 1.2.x. Solution here:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Bennett Lee pfse...@bennettandgina.com wrote:
I have pfSense with several subnets on separate interfaces at my home office
and many of my clients have the same. I have IPSEC to these clients so I
can admin remotely. The problem I have is that I have not found
Hello, I have a privite network.
||
|-|
--| p |192.168.0.1 | dlink dir615|
x.x.x.x | f ||192.168.0.245 |
| s ||--|
A static route on pfsense for the 2.x network sending traffic to 0.245
should do the trick unless I'm missing something.
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
2008/10/11 Peter Todorov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello, I have a privite network.
2008/10/11 Curtis LaMasters [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A static route on pfsense for the 2.x network sending traffic to 0.245
should do the trick unless I'm missing something.
And also check Bypass firewall rules for traffic on the same
interface on the Advanced page since this will end up being
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/11 Curtis LaMasters [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A static route on pfsense for the 2.x network sending traffic to 0.245
should do the trick unless I'm missing something.
And also check Bypass firewall rules for traffic
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Bill Marquette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Chris Buechler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/11 Curtis LaMasters [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A static route on pfsense for the 2.x network sending traffic to 0.245
should do the trick unless
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Craig Silva
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sort of have a feeling that this is not possible but am asking the question
anyway - I have users who attach via pptp to a pfsense box and this same box
has an ipsec tunnel on it.
Anyway to route between the two?
It
I sort of have a feeling that this is not possible but am asking the question
anyway - I have users who attach via pptp to a pfsense box and this same box
has an ipsec tunnel on it.
Anyway to route between the two?
Craig
--
Craig
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 Apr 2008 01:56 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Routing MSN
Mike Lever wrote:
Hi,
Been having problems the last few days with users on my LAN not being able
to login to MSN messenger. I have been fiddling around on my firewall but
unsure
I've never actually herd of having to open any ports for MSN to function
properly. Now, I only use the messenger portion of this so I may not have
ever had the need. Without adding any special rules to the firewall or
changing the outbound NAT, do you get any error messages in the log? Have
you
or copying prohibited. Please notify us
immediately by e-mail and return the original message. Thank you.
From: Curtis LaMasters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 Apr 2008 04:31 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Routing MSN
I've
Ok. I guess you could leave it where it is and let it run or if you do
want, with Wireshark the big thing is inspecting what you expect. You logon
to MSN (or attempt), you then should see traffic from MSN acknowledging
that. Typical TCP stuff. Let me know if you want more information.
--
Hello, I am new in this list so from already my greetings to all. I have the
following doubt: how can I leak LogMe In in pfsense?
Should I leak only everything what it avenges from *.logmein.com?
I wait for some suggestion, from already thank you very much
Sebastián Veloso Varas
Fuerza Aérea de
Hi,
Been having problems the last few days with users on my LAN not being able
to login to MSN messenger. I have been fiddling around on my firewall but
unsure what I affected to make this change.
How can I route all mu MSN traffic through a specific wan port ? I have 5
various types and would
I have been preparing to shift my network to a new bigger subnet. I have
routing set up between old
192.168.2.* and new 10.10.*.* subnet. I have been evaluating pfsense for a
while. Its routing of local LAN to LAN subnets is not reliable.
At times it was great, but I feel that having traffic
I have not tested this but you could create a HFSC Queue with a priority of
1 (default) Then create a Traffic Shaper rule from LAN IP to LAN IP using
that queue. Then put that rule at the top of your list.
--
Curtis LaMasters
http://www.curtis-lamasters.com
http://www.builtnetworks.com
Will someone that is exactly sure, tell me if it is possible to route a
global subnet through the wan interface? The global subnet and the wan
address is not in the same subnet.
Kind regards
Anders Dahl
Sure.you just have to route the subnet to the WAN interface IP and turn off
NAT.
Brent
_
From: Anders Dahl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:15 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Routing a global subnet
Will someone
Anders Dahl wrote:
Will someone that is exactly sure, tell me if it is possible to route
a global subnet through the wan interface? The global subnet and the
wan address is not in the same subnet.
I presume you mean a public IP subnet. Sure, it needs to be routed by
your ISP to your WAN
Thank you. The global subnet is a public one. I'll try and set it up
again, and if I don't succeed, I'll post again.
Thanks
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Chris Buechler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. september 2007 19:19
Til: support@pfsense.com
Emne: Re: [pfSense Support] Routing
Thank you. I'll try and set it up
again, and if I don't succeed, I'll post again.
Thanks
_
Fra: Brent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. september 2007 19:17
Til: support@pfsense.com
Emne: RE: [pfSense Support] Routing a global subnet
Sure.you just have to route the subnet
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 12:02 +0100, Chris Bagnall wrote:
Greetings list,
I know there've been discussions on the m0n0wall list in the past regarding
throughput benchmarking on Soekris platforms. Would those same figures also
apply to pfSense?
If not, has anyone done any benchmarking on
Greetings list,
I know there've been discussions on the m0n0wall list in the past regarding
throughput benchmarking on Soekris platforms. Would those same figures also
apply to pfSense?
If not, has anyone done any benchmarking on 4801/5501 boards they'd be willing
to share with the list?
I'm
-
From: Chris Bagnall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Chris Bagnall
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:03 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Routing throughput on Soekris boards
Greetings list,
I know there've been discussions on the m0n0wall list in the
past
David Strout wrote:
I have a need to setup the following topology at
several location connected via VPN tunnels.
NET1--RTR1--NET2--pfS1--{INET}--pfS2--NET3--RTR2--NET4
--IPsec TUNNEL--
NET1=10.10.10.0/24
NET2=192.168.100.0/24
NET3=192.168.200.0/24
NET4=10.10.20.0/24
I have
different combinations of configs.
--
-- David L. Strout
-- ENGINEERING SYSTEMS PLUS, LLC
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Grooms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:30 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] routing over
of configs.
--
-- David L. Strout
-- ENGINEERING SYSTEMS PLUS, LLC
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Grooms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:30 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] routing over
IPsec
I have a need to setup the following topology at
several location connected via VPN tunnels.
NET1--RTR1--NET2--pfS1--{INET}--pfS2--NET3--RTR2--NET4
--IPsec TUNNEL--
NET1=10.10.10.0/24
NET2=192.168.100.0/24
NET3=192.168.200.0/24
NET4=10.10.20.0/24
I have a VPN tunnel nailed up
increasing the state table size to 200 000 did the trick it is now stable
total traffic in the last 48hours is arround 500 gb so I can safely say it
is working now.
10x once again for the support
On 5/26/07, Alin Badea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
10x for the advice I will give it a try today and
10x for the advice I will give it a try today and by tomorrow I will have
then answer if this does it or not ( the downloaderd are most active during
the night , they simply let their computers on ).
Hello as stated in the subj I have a network of 60 ip's ( a city block
network ) that are orientated 95 on p2p traffic DC++ torrents, the reason
I wanted to try pfsense is for the traffic shaper that seems to do a good
job in ensuring some bandwith for e-mail and http traffic and evenly
Alin Badea wrote:
Hello as stated in the subj I have a network of 60 ip's ( a city block
network ) that are orientated 95 on p2p traffic DC++ torrents, the
reason I wanted to try pfsense is for the traffic shaper that seems to
do a good job in ensuring some bandwith for e-mail and http
On 3/14/07, Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/13/07, Craig Wiltshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please ignore this issue I have found my problem
For the public lists, can you describe what the resolution was?
Thanks!
I'll bet it was related to NETBIOS not being passed over to
: Mittwoch, 14. März 2007 21:24
An: support@pfsense.com
Betreff: Re: [pfSense Support] Routing breaks Windows shares
On 3/14/07, Scott Ullrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/13/07, Craig Wiltshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please ignore this issue I have found my problem
For the public
Dear All,
I have just configured 2 pfsense boxes to route traffic across a 100Mbit link
between sites where I work and everything is fine except for my windows
shares.
I can map a network drive but not copy any data to or from it.
In order to prove that it is pfsense giving me the
Holger Bauer escribió:
I don't get how the 2 machines are connected to each other but you probably
are missing some routes somewhere.
Please provide more details, maybe a small ascii diagram to describe the
topology.
OK.
Fiber Internet GW
=
203.1.20.145 IP
Manuel Trujillo Albarral escribió:
Holger Bauer escribió:
I don't get how the 2 machines are connected to each other but you probably
are missing some routes somewhere.
Please provide more details, maybe a small ascii diagram to describe the
topology.
OK.
Fiber Internet GW
Hi.
My routing problem:
router internet with .20.145 (an ethernet connection from fiber).
Pfsense machine1 with 4 eth.
LAN with 1.1 xl0
WAN with 27.41 with default gw .20.146 in xl1
OPT1 with 20.146 with default gw .20.145 in xl3
Default gw .20.145
This machine run's fine if I put 1.1 like gw
]
Gesendet: Montag, 5. März 2007 18:01
An: support@pfsense.com
Betreff: [pfSense Support] Routing problem.
Hi.
My routing problem:
router internet with .20.145 (an ethernet connection from fiber).
Pfsense machine1 with 4 eth.
LAN with 1.1 xl0
WAN with 27.41 with default gw .20.146 in xl1
OPT1
Hi,
I have a network (172.1.1.0/24) on an interface, em0 (10.20.100.0/24)
that I need to be able to route to a different interface, em2
(10.10.100.0/24). I got this working with Shorewall on Linux by adding a
static route for 172.1.1.0/24 to 10.20.100.1 (IP of em0). However, when
I try it on
Ok, I think I found a way around it. All I have to do is specify
-iface to the route command line arguments. I can then (from
172.1.1.2) ping 10.10.100.x:
route add 172.1.1/24 10.20.100.1 -iface
Is there any way we can add the various flags to the webgui static route
page? Even if we have to
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: [pfSense Support] Routing to /dev/null
Good afternoon all,
Can PF can support blackholing by routing to /dev/null? It doesn't
look like the web configurator will let me do that magic, how would one go
about adding and deleting
On 1/26/07, Wade Blackwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good afternoon all,
Can PF can support blackholing by routing to /dev/null? It doesn't
look like the web configurator will let me do that magic, how would one go
about adding and deleting routes for that purpose?
Add a static route
Hey guys good morning,
So I don't know how the rules might be subverted but since there is
always that chance i would like to have the option of putting yet another
road block up. This technique is used allot in large organizations, it
usually is done in a much fancier way, with
FreeBSD does have a -blackhole option to route I believe, we don't
support it however. Feel free to submit patches for whatever you come
up with.
--Bill
On 1/27/07, Wade Blackwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey guys good morning,
So I don't know how the rules might be subverted but since
Good afternoon all,
Can PF can support blackholing by routing to /dev/null? It doesn't
look like the web configurator will let me do that magic, how would one go
about adding and deleting routes for that purpose?
Wade B
--
Integrity is more important than perception management
There
do you mean just setting up a rule to DENY traffic?
- Original Message -
From: Wade Blackwell
To: support@pfsense.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: [pfSense Support] Routing to /dev/null
Good afternoon all,
Can PF can support blackholing
a rule to DENY traffic?
- Original Message -
*From:* Wade Blackwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* support@pfsense.com
*Sent:* Friday, January 26, 2007 5:41 PM
*Subject:* [pfSense Support] Routing to /dev/null
Good afternoon all,
Can PF can support blackholing by routing to /dev/null
Hi,
I configured an OpenVpn tunnel (client to server)
from a pfSense box to freebsd firewall. All seems ok
but packets don't route from tun0 to lan net and viceversa.
I can ping tunnel's ip from freebsd but not lan's ip.
I tried to disable nat and firewall rules (in pfSense) but
unsuccessfull.
Hello,
I have a baffling problem:
I am trying to establish and Open Directory replica between two
network (204.50.17.0/24) and (66.42.196.32/27) the first network is
on a T1 line with a cisco router the second network is in a colo with
a pfsense router. the pfsense router is connected to
What does your NAT configuration look like?
On the PFsense and on the Cisco side? Does the suddenly natted
traffic look as though it is sourced from the public IP of the
PFsense?
Wade B
Wade B
On 10/11/06, Pierre Frisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have a baffling problem:
Pierre Frisch wrote:
That is the bizarre thing I am not using NAT both network have fully
routable addresses and all machine have permanent routable IPs.
Yes it Nat would have that effect. How can I be sure to have it
completely disabled on the pfsense box? There is nothing in the Nat
Thank you very much that did the trick. May be we should have a more
obvious setting -:)
Pierre
On 11-Oct-06, at 9:44 AM, Chris Buechler wrote:
Pierre Frisch wrote:
That is the bizarre thing I am not using NAT both network have
fully routable addresses and all machine have permanent
On 10/11/06, Pierre Frisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much that did the trick. May be we should have a more
obvious setting -:)
It is the exact same as m0n0wall. We are not changing this.
Scott
-
To
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On 10/11/06, Pierre Frisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much that did the trick. May be we should have a more
obvious setting -:)
It is the exact same as m0n0wall. We are not changing this.
And it's in the FAQ. Search for disable NAT and it's right there.
Hi All,
I have a problem with routing and IPSEC VPN tunnels, attached is a
picture of the setup. There is a firewall cluster in the main office,
the firewalls in the branch offices all connect through IPSEC with the
main office.
So A - B is a IPSEC tunnel and A - C is a IPSEC tunnel, this all
On 9/26/06, Rob Evers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I have a problem with routing and IPSEC VPN tunnels, attached is a
picture of the setup. There is a firewall cluster in the main office,
the firewalls in the branch offices all connect through IPSEC with the
main office.
So A - B is a
?
Holger
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Frisch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 6:32 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Routing / VPN problem
Hi,
I am converting an existing network by adding a pfSense router in
between
Hi,
I have a pfsense box at home. I have 3 interfaces. I have been assigned
a 81.174.xxx.8/29 network by my ISP and wish to route some hosts behind
a DMZ. Basically how I have it is:
81.174.xxx.9 is router which has a x-over cable to 81.174.xxx.10 which
is WAN.
DMZ (Opt1) has
Vlan 200 192.168.1.16/28
Etc
Assign vlan 100 to lan
Assign vlan200 to opt1
And so on and so forth
-Original Message-
From: Lee Hetherington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 February 2006 09:21
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Routing Issue
Yea thats what im
94 matches
Mail list logo
