Turns out everything was working. The other side detected multiple connections from the same account and did not like it.

You may route this on pfSense to the client 10.10.10.80, but this route will be applied to any connection passing pfSense, also upstream from LAN hosts. In addition if 10.10.10.80 isn't a router itself with a public WAN address you either will need a route for 10.10.10.22 at the other side or do source NAT at the client for this connection.

"I pay for a 150mbps connection but only get 30-50mbps" So your saying wired to the powerline adapters you only see 50mbps.. But if wired to pfsense directly or with normal switch you see your full bandwidth?  Or when connected to the modem you see full but pfsense is downstream of your modem via powerline?  Can you draw up the constraints your working with..  Why exactly can you not run a wire from the modem to the rest of your network?  What powerline adapters are you currently using.. They are not all created equal that is for sure.. "buy a new wireless USB" Usb is just going to be crap.. I wouldn't even consider this as an option.. "use LAGG or some other combination of wireless and wired to combine the interfaces for speed" Not sure where you get the idea that lagg will give you more speed?  1+1 = 1+1 it does not = 2 in lagg.. So while you could load share across the lag.  A single client is not going to see any sort of speed increase.

here is what rule i have for the Opt1 its named wireless AP [image: 1.png] [image: 1.png_thumb]

Noted. Best regards Kostas

^ true anyone wanting to bridge interfaces to be on the same layer 2.. Only needs a dumb switch to take on that role.

Thanks for the reply, but as a matter of fact it was an routing issue, i had client overide and add the routes manually so each can ping each other, best part of all did not have to read books https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=127455.msg705357#msg705357

So apparently patience is the key here with this.  For some reason that I haven't been able to pin down.  Both VPN links are now up and running.  So um yeah.

Yes this is possible.  In your Firewall > Rules > <<network>> Select the rule.  Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on advanced.  Then go to Gateway and change it from default to the WAN link that you want. You will also have to do this for your fail over as well since you will need to create a gateway group to send traffic to the gateway group instead of the default gateway. </network>

And did you setup your ISP router to nat these networks?  Since your not natting them on pfsense?  You also have a asymmetrical setup here for devices to to and with devices in your lab.. 192.168.10.0/24: LAN, for normal machines 192.168.20.0/24: DEV, for dev/test machines 192.168.30.0/24: SRV, for servers made available to the internet Your best solution here is to just put your isp modem/router into bridge mode and use pfsense as your edge router/firewall.  Or just double nat..  I have yet to see a soho gateway from an ISP that allows you to nat other networks other than the one that is its lan, etc.

The capacity of the virtual drive I use for pfSense is 5GB and honestly I don't see why I should use a larger capacity than what I have now. Therefore, the reason why I couldn't see the drive to install 2.3.x was not the capacity of the drive or the controller since I've tried all the resolutions I found in here. I suppose that the real question here is the unsupported version I'm using and not the issue I'm having even though sometimes issues are continued through versions until they are reported and fixed. Anyone can see that my setup is a bit of unique with 5 WAN connections over DHCP and I this is why I raised my question. Otherwise, no one else has an issue like this using a single or dual wan with real static IP's. What I will try though, is to disable all the other WAN ports and perform a speedtest having only 1 LAN and 1 WAN.

What, nobody knows how this supposed to work?

Sorry for not being more specific in my last comment, but that PR#3609 is only for 2.4. In case anyone needs it, I made a version that applies clean to 2.3.3- you can grab it from this commit (apply in System Patches) https://github.com/luckman212/pfsense/commit/87d5f6579223410c629eddf5ca4386cb435e0a9e

what is strange about it ? if you ping from you windows terminal to where ? to the monitor-ip ?

Thank you so much, Windows's firewall on 192.168.0.110 was blocked incoming protocol from other sub net. Now, I can access to 192.168.0.110 via 192.168.2.0 sub net.  ;D