Let me update my question, I made a mistake on my first explanation. Again, I have 1 ADSL and 1 HDSL, if I put both into a ROUTING GROUP (System->Routing->Group) using Tier1 for BOTH, I don't have the SUM of the bandwidth BUT the difference!!!!. Can someone explain me where is my error? I test it with "Member Down", "Packet Lost", "High Latency", and "Packet Lost or High Latency", in all the cases I have less bandwidth than the sum (near 5 to 7M). Thanks in advance.

In 2.0 release it is working great and without any issues. Used it on i386 and amd64.

Yes, DHCP settings are odd, but DHCP is only on for testing purposes. This setup is going to route traffic between two phone systems whose consoles need to talk to each other. ahhh… confession time, I've been a knob, but you chaps have pointed me in the right direction & I'm eternally grateful, it seems to be working now.

not to complicate this more for you, but you many also want to get two switches and split the 8 lines. Both switches would have 4 lines and 1 pf port (pf port running vlans) That may give you a little more redundancy at the switch level.

nope, got it goin already! haha, thanks!! used the group for failover of wan2towan as gateway, processed fast enough.. thanks again, hope this helps people in need.

So I made for my https following changes: created new failover gateway: [image: 77bsnb4r.png] gateway overview one for loadbalancing for all my traffic and the other failover for specific traffic needs which has trouble with multiwan connections: [image: jilr6lgn.png] and edited the firewall rule for my https traffic: [image: fjt2cdy2.png] till now everything is working as it was before w/o pfsense :-) I am going to test this setup on weekend when I have 2 separate lines for myself. So far so good thanks to all and especially u Nachtfalke - u brought a little light to my mind about rules ans failover things :-) Stev

Sounds like doable with two pfsense boxes, with failover setups

I tried policy based routing which worked on failure but never switched back :/

Thanks GF. You are correct vyatta needed to be told about the routes, so not the fault of pfsense at all. Very happy this is now working and traffic is flowing nicely. Thanks again! :)

It will be 'statefull' for tcp and udp, keep sessions will work on both at pfsense. See via tcpdump at console how your VPN connections are 'flowing'. Open two consoles,one for each wan. Also test sessions To other services like dns or http for example.

Make it in the GUI. If you are on 1.2.3, just put the target IP in the 'gateway' field on the WAN interface page. If you are on 2.0, make the gateway entry under System > Routing, select it as default, and make sure it's also chosen from the gateway drop-down on your WAN interface page. You're really overcomplicating what is actually a very simple setting.

the 8.8.4.4 and 8.8.8.8 will work maybe you should put a static route which interfaces will be used to go in 8.8.4.4 and 8.8.8.8  :)

Anybody got any feelings on this?

it wouldnt help on setting them on different tiers?

Hey, i made a simple guide for everyone to follow on how to setup multiwan (2x wan 1x LAN). The guide assumes that you have already configured pfsense with both wans. it's so simple and beautiful. Step 1-3 sets up the load balancing. step 4 is about giving specific computers, or ports (services) direct access to only one of the WAN's - in other words, it won't be load balanced. This helps with certain webpages like facebook or very secure webpages. hope it helps [image: ?viewt=8037129748237]

thanks also GruensFroeschli! you guys are great! i'll be learning more from all of you guys, just started the box a month ago.. :)

You could post that problem here or open new topic

If you look your forum nick and under that is white box with search button next to it. please consider using that. Policybased routing is the term what you're searching at. And yes it can be done. just remember firewall rules work on ingress and top-to-down.