@dennypage said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc: @phil80 said in pfsense-tools.git clang gcc: portsnap fetch properly fetches freebsd ports collection FWIW, portsnap is very dead as far as the FreeBSD folk are concerned. All references to it were removed from the documentation 5 years ago, and its use is no longer supported. The original announcement is here: [HEADS UP] Planned deprecation of portsnap. Thank you for the reminder. I usually only use Latest. I always use git for collaboration In short life or one use jails, portsnap is way faster to fetch than git for one package compile Based on your linked article, I'll favor git in the future

Mmm, so prevent source tracking for specific IPs or subnets? I did wonder if sticky connections could be per gateway group. That seems like it should be possible. You could then use rules to route specific clients or subnets to a non-sticky group.

OK so it looks like you had two issues: The installer didn't work as you expected it to but you were able to get 2.8 installed and booted. The resulting install didn't behave as you expected. That's independent of the installer and 2.7.2 would have behaved identically in that situation. So after install you assigned two interfaces, pfSense names them WAN and LAN but any interface can be anything. And you configured them both to be DHCP since both subnets already have a DHCP server? The typical subnet conflict that users hit when installing behind another firewall if that pfSense uses 192.168.1.1/24 as the default LAN address and that subnet is also used by the upstream firewall WAN side. I assume you didn't hit that since both subnets already existed in your network so must be using different subnets? What are they? However you then say you set the LAN back to a static address? Presumably in the same subnet? By default pfSense creates firewall rules on the LAN interface to allow access to the webgui there. That applies whether the LAN is static or DHCP. How exactly were you trying to connect? From where?

Ah OK I see, the names threw me!

@RobbieTT Be aware that I am not at all saying that a user can directly access the ISP-node, but I am sure that PPOE interface can !! Whats ever I it helps, I am absolutely OK to activate PPOE debug logging for a short period! Note that my actual config is like this ISP => ISP-fiber-interface => one of my small switches => pfSense. Internet should arrive via VLAN 6, IPTV via VLAN4 and (Old) VoIP via VLAN7. Untagged routed to vlan1 and vlans (internet) are routed to pfSense. I did add vlan1 to be quite sure that even untagged messages are passing to pfSense. Normally I would simply have blocked untagged. However the PPPOE is assigned to VLAN6.

Currently nothing I'm aware of but going forward some functions will likely be written in go and hence in the Nexus package. Obviously that assumes the Nexus package is always present so it is automatically re-installed at upgrade.

@cybrnook It looks if you are referring to the pimd engine version [image: 1752688668863-854cb5be-fd74-43b0-848a-b83df5637c1b-image.png] Which is quite old, and as far as I know not working under FreeBSD. I have compiled the never released pimd-3.0.b1 version (using FreeBSD15 current).

@cmcdonald Appears to be back/fixed. Thanks.

You can set the size it rotates at and the number of files to retain in the log settings at Status > Logs > Settings. As long as you have the space you should be able to increase it.

@stephenw10 The Ultra Ethernet Consortium

@stephenw10 Aye that's right

Hi guys, I create simple shell script reports for AbuseIPDB from filter.log file. Maybe it will be helpful to someone. It was tested over a one-week period and works as expected. Here is the link: ttps://github.com/whoami-0x44/abuseipdb-reporting-pfsense

Yes you can choose 2.8.0-beta from the installer menu. Edit: Now 2.8.0-RC