Can somebody explain how to use static route
I want to static route everything to a certain IP out via opt1
in the linux world
route add 210.55.105.82 gw 203.96.212.1
how do I do this in pfsense?
is the interface field the out interface or the in interface?
Paul.
--
Hello!
We have a pfSense box with several physical NICs on our LAN side. We have in
place a static route directing traffic destined for a remote 10.2.0.0/16
network on to our VPN concentrator, which then handles linking to the external
site.
In the Static Routes config screens of the pfSe
Hello,
I have to patch how static routes are applied in pfsense 1.2.3,
because it falls over when there are already lots of routes (e.g. on a
bgp-speaking router). Specifically, in /etc/inc/system.inc:234 it
reads netstat -rn into memory, exhausting the default php memory
limit.
I would propose to
Afternoon all.
We am running pfsense 1.2.3-RELEASE and having issues with a couple remote
sites.
We have a few static route statements. Each of them are actually part of the
same subnet and go to the same gateway. We prefer to have each subnet routed
individually because it is easier to trac
On 5/28/06, Paul W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can somebody explain how to use static route
I want to static route everything to a certain IP out via opt1
in the linux world
route add 210.55.105.82 gw 203.96.212.1
how do I do this in pfsense?
is the interface field the out interface or the in in
yeah I can see that.
what I'm asking is what does the interface field mean?
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On 5/28/06, Paul W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can somebody explain how to use static route
I want to static route everything to a certain IP out via opt1
in the linux world
route add 210.55.10
On 5/28/06, Paul W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah I can see that.
what I'm asking is what does the interface field mean?
It is for directly reachable type of situations. You most likely
don't want this option.
-
To unsubsc
I don't see how I can avoid it?
quote follows from system->static routes (lynx)
System: Static Routes: Edit route
Interface [LAN_]
Choose which interface this route applies to.
Destination network / [32]
Destination network for this static route
Gateway ___
On Mon 29 May 2006 08:41:07 NZST +1200, Paul W wrote:
> Can somebody explain how to use static route
> I want to static route everything to a certain IP out via opt1
>
> in the linux world
> route add 210.55.105.82 gw 203.96.212.1
>
> how do I do this in pfsense?
> is the interface field the out
We do not have multi-path routing in FreeBSD. No ticket is required
this works as it should. Enter the next hop gateway for whatever
route you require and it should just work.
On 5/28/06, Volker Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon 29 May 2006 08:41:07 NZST +1200, Paul W wrote:
> Can s
> We do not have multi-path routing in FreeBSD.
??
> No ticket is required this works as it should.
Yes it works. The ticket is for the help text with the interface field
in the statc routes form, which omits to say that this interface is the
interface where the packets for this route come in
On 5/28/06, Volker Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do not have multi-path routing in FreeBSD.
??
Multi-wan support is handled by PF, not by the kernel routing table.
Hence the reason multi-wan doesnt work on userland processes such as
squid, etc.
-
Perfect . .thank you
It appears to be the in interface. You should open a bug report for the
help text of System->Static Routes, because it's not saying that.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comm
in general, I've noticed that the interface setting makes no difference
to what happens when using a gateway IP.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Paul Mansfield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in general, I've noticed that the interface setting makes no difference
> to what happens when using a gateway IP.
>
It does - it opens the anti-spoofing rules appropriately and generates
NAT rules according to which inte
Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Paul Mansfield
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> in general, I've noticed that the interface setting makes no difference
>> to what happens when using a gateway IP.
>>
>
> It does - it opens the anti-spoofing rules appropriately and generates
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Atkins, Dwane P wrote:
> Afternoon all.
>
>
>
> We am running pfsense 1.2.3-RELEASE and having issues with a couple remote
> sites.
>
>
>
> We have a few static route statements. Each of them are actually part of
> the same subnet and go to the same gateway. We p
I guess I'm encountering a mental block on how to do this... Can anyone
help?
I have two pfSense boxes in different locations (and obviously on the
Internet).
I have a LAN to LAN IPSec between them.
192.168.1.x <-> 192.168.19.x
The far pfSense box also has a DMZ/OPT1 network:
10.0.0.x
Is there
I have this setup :
Main Office : 172.16.0.0/22
Default Gateway : 172.16.0.1 (pfsense)
Branches : 192.168.2.0, 3.0, 4.0, etc.
Default gateway : 192.168.2.1, 3.1, 4.1, etc.
I have setup this static routes on pfsense ( as done previously with
monowall)
Network : 192.168.2.0/24, 3.0/24, etc
Gatewa
-Original Message-
From: Gary Buckmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 December 2007 15:11
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Static routes for a VPN - it's probably simple
but
Steve,
You really should not be running 1.0.1 anymore for production.
Original Message-
From: Gary Buckmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 December 2007 13:56
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Static routes again
Steve,
What's netstat -lr say about your route? Pay specific attention to the
interface that the route is applied to.
-Original Message-
From: Gary Buckmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 December 2007 15:11
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Static routes for a VPN - it's probably simple
but
Steve,
You really should not be running 1.0.1 anymore for production. There
hav
client, so it's making it as
far as the pfSense box yet the static route to the remote network seems to be being
ignored.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Gary Buckmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 December 2007 13:56
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support]
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:09 AM
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: [pfSense Support] Static routes over IPSec
>
>
> I guess I'm encountering a mental block on how to do this...
> Can anyone
> help?
>
> I have two pfSense boxes in diffe
he tunnel if needed btw to reach subnets via another gateway.
Holger> -Original Message-> From: Jason J Ellingson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:09 AM> To:
support@pfsense.com> Subject: [pfSense Support] Static routes over IPSec>>> I
: Wednesday, March 29, 2006
6:41 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support]
Static routes over IPSec
I had to do the exact
same thing. I have a pfsense box at home and a test pfsense box at work. (great
work btw folks, love pfsense) I have 6 different subnets and had to build a
tunnel
1:41 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Static routes over IPSec
I had to do the exact same thing. I have a pfsense box at home and a test
pfsense box at work. (great work btw folks, love pfsense) I have 6 different
subnets and had to build a tunnel for each one. I wish there
t; combine this with static routes at the pfSense where the traffic leaves
> > the tunnel if needed btw to reach subnets via another gateway.
> >
> > Holger
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Jason J Ellingson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > &
t and
I could move more people from PPTP to IPSec.
- Jason
-Original Message-
From: Peter Curran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:53 AM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Static routes over IPSec
This problem is caused because IPsec tunnel
On 3/30/06, Jason J Ellingson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, could the rules be applied to data being received from a tunnel?
>
> With mobile IPSec clients (ignoring PPTP as an option), there is no way to
> control data received. You can only have filters on what goes into a tunnel
> and not wh
On 3/30/06, Bill Marquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm...I did some work on porting enc(4) over from OpenBSD - I don't
> recall how far I got though (or for that matter, where that work
> is...I suspect I just lost it two weeks ago in a hard drive crash on
> my laptop - it's on some VM somewh
On 3/30/06, Scott Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/30/06, Bill Marquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmmm...I did some work on porting enc(4) over from OpenBSD - I don't
> > recall how far I got though (or for that matter, where that work
> > is...I suspect I just lost it two weeks ago
gt; - Jason
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Curran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:53 AM
> To: support@pfsense.com
> Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Static routes over IPSec
>
> This problem is caused because IPsec tunnel mode creates &
TED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 6:40 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense Support] Static Routes not functioning
I have this setup :
Main Office : 172.16.0.0/22
Default Gateway : 172.16.0.1 (pfsense)
Branches : 192.168.2.0, 3.0, 4.0, etc.
Default gateway : 192.168.2.1, 3.1, 4.1, etc.
I h
463 RPM : #221593
http://www.mitsuimaquinarias.com
-Original Message-
From: Holger Bauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 3:11 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Static Routes not functioning
Is this a multiwan setup or are you utilizing poli
Cesar Vergara wrote:
I have this setup :
Main Office : 172.16.0.0/22
Default Gateway : 172.16.0.1 (pfsense)
Branches : 192.168.2.0, 3.0, 4.0, etc.
Default gateway : 192.168.2.1, 3.1, 4.1, etc.
I have setup this static routes on pfsense ( as done previously with
monowall)
Network : 192.168.2.0
326-4957
Fax : (51) 326-4957
Cel : 95404463 RPM : #221593
http://www.mitsuimaquinarias.com
-Original Message-
From: Chris Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 3:52 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] Static Routes not functioning
Cesar Verg
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:15 PM
To: support@pfsense.com
Subject: RE: [pfSense Support] Static Routes not functioning
Yes your right. I have read all the posts and i have the same problem
with pfsese 1.0.1 and MonoWall 1.3b1 & 1.3B2 (based on FreeBSD 6.2RC1).
The Monowall 1.2 b
Hi!
\\ pfSense v1.0.1
We're having a VPN appliance thrust upon us by our newly acquired (!) parent
company, in order to provide site-to-site connectivity between "us & them".
To reach the parent company's remote LANs at head-office I think I need to add
static routes on our pfSense box p
Steve,
The only thing I can think of is a problem with established traffic between
your local and remote subnets. Your computers I am going to assume have a
default gateway set to go directly to your firewall, from their, you have a
static route set for the 10.1.0.0 network to go to your local LA
Steve,
You really should not be running 1.0.1 anymore for production. There
have been literally thousands of bugs fixed (including a number of them
within the VPN implementations) and pfSense has had RCs out for quite
some time. Before you go too far down this road, you should really upgrade.
Hi !
One thing you may want to check on the client PCs, if they are Windows
machines, is the firewall setup: in Advanced/ICMP make sure "ICMP
Redirects" are allowed ... And if you have network printers, you may
want to set their gateways to the VPN box if they're to be addressed
from the
42 matches
Mail list logo
