@smrehan00 said in Add urtwn driver on pfsense 2.4.4. Network adapter TP-Link TL-WN725N doesn't work:

@Daddo Were you able to make it work?

Yes, it's worked fine. Sorry for this late reply. Thanks for your support.

There is no FreeBSD driver for Intel AC 9560. The Intel AC driver only supports some 8000 series cards:

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwm&sektion=4&apropos=0&manpath=FreeBSD+12.0-RELEASE+and+Ports

That card will likely not work for some time, if at all. Also the iwm driver does not support hostap mode so you can't use it as an access point.

Steve

IT looks like the EAP330 has two Ethernet ports. Are they bridged? Can you connected a client to that directly and test from there?
It looks like they also support lagg. You could try setting that up and see if that provides more. Though I see not reason why you should need that.

Steve

Hmm, that's weird. Like it forgot the value somehow. I assume ath0_wlan0 does not do that when you 'UP' it?

I'll try and find a card that can run at 11g at all....

Steve

Yeah this sure screams of SPAM... Going to bring it up to admins and mods.

I see Stephen already has it marked work in progress in the ticket system ;)

Ok - that account has been banned for spamming.

Found the problem.

I setup the router to ip 192.168.1.2
but didnt setup the range for DHCP... had to change the range. so my static ips won't be given out by DHCP.

You didn't say it supports vlan.. But to be honest that brands low end stuff is just crap.. Your suggested model doesn't even support AC.. For that same price point he could get a gig AC wifi router and use it as AP..

Vlans aside that is a horrible suggestion to be honest..

🙄

-Rico

@jknott said in Wifi AC:

That's DE-9. People often make that mistake.

Woops, now it's getting interesting again!
I didn't even know of the D-sub naming convention and until today referred to those 9-pin serial connectors (wrongly) as DB-9.

This happens more often than one might think. The audio industry pretty much always uses 3-Pin "XLR" connectors for symmetrical analog audio today. Fun part is that Cannon named them XLR with the trailing "R" for a rubber version. But no-one knows that and if I told a colleague to use the XL connector he would think I'm completely nuts now. ⛑
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XLR_connector#History_and_manufacturers

You need to separate your switch Port(s) first: https://www.netgate.com/resources/videos/configuring-netgate-appliance-integrated-switches-on-pfsense-244.html

After that you can do the Setup like in your main office.

-Rico

@sikr did you ever solved this?

@jknott said in Different wifi AC:

For WiFi, the best thing is to have separate access points, so that they can be placed where needed. You can buy access points or use "routers" as APs. However, proper access points often support power over Ethernet, so you don't have to worry about having AC nearby.

Thanks for your reponse.
Regards

I'm using Prolink PRN3001 and TP-Link Archer C20 AC750 Wireless Dual Band. One WAN speed is 50Mbps and other is 30Mbps. In pfsense, I've set them up 1:1 Tier passing via LAN as 'superhighway'. In wired connection I get full 80Mbps speed and only 30Mbps in wireless. I do not even want 80Mbps in wireless. I would be happy even if each get at least 20Mbps simultaneously when in use.
I do have a cheap $6 Ethernet card and old computer. Is that it?

Bumping an old thread. Seems like Unify would be a great way to go if you didn't already have a significant investment in equipment that could easily be converted if FreeBSD got it's act together and supported AC. It's gonna be around for a while longer... why not get some official support on the subject?

I've used a mixture of Unift, Fortigate, Cisco, HPE, Zyxel, TrendNET, Netgear, Ruckus, TPLink... at the end of the day, I would like to use pfSense on the WRT1900AC that I have at home. Why? Cause it's pretty badass. Also cause the guys at Belkin/Linksys actually had talks with Netgate about getting a pfSense distribution together for it and many of it's other devices... but you know what? I'm messing around with DD-WRT because it supports the WiFi. The whole point is if you have an already good device, why not make it better? Unify isn't bad but I really don't see the point in wasting more money on equipment unless you're going for enterprise grade protection... which pfSense already does for free...

Does anyone see what's wrong with this picture? I'll make a new thread with a similar name to bring interest back to the subject, I think it's worth an actual solution.

Damn, now it's work!

So well, just in short, I write two thing about.
Thankfully your nice layout diagram I understand more better your scenario.

First thing I notice is about firewall rules on WIFI, but and LAN as well, something is wrong.
Step one , if you dont'use IPV6 you may will to blocking/disabling this protocol trought System / Advanced / Networking
alt text

Or if you will use IPV6 protocol, please take apart for now and disabing the rules related. Or atleast do the same logic trought interfaces, (ex. if in your lan here ipv4 and ipv6 is detached , why you make ipv4+ipv6 in one at WIFI? this is not consistent according to me)

Step two , You know after restoring pfSense default's rule "Allow LAN to any" under LAN tab, well you need to respect same logic as LAN to WIFI
and set it according, you need to changhe LAn net to WIFI net for this job, and delete your top rule at WIFI "any to any" because this overlaps the right rule below. (right rule if you change it as described above)
for example look my rule below:
alt text

Well after this, now hottest topic, your configuration needs ovpn review according to me.

For avoid some kind of your last problem i advice you to forget bridging at all and set interfaces properly with respective subnet address , dhcp server pool and add "other" routing path under ovpn tunnel configuration, this last done by editing your current tunnel or add new one.

After this I'm absolutley sure you can go trought on internet-
At this stage maybe you miss routing instruction, and bridges will fail under some kind of special scenario like yours.

Because is better live within standard configuration if knowdledge isn't enough.

Unfortunatley I "hate" ovpn's at all :D hehe it's more complex and full of mistery for me, and my defaults in mind is ipsec based protocol, allow me all kind of routing I need between interfaces / wan / interfaces and work easy with easy setup, so if you can do, better forgive ovpn and setup ipsec.

If you love ovpn's stuffs so go to learn more about and find your way.

I would suggest you reconsider the configuration of your setup with pfSense, by following this guide:
https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/wireless/use-an-existing-wireless-router-with-pfsense.html