@johnpoz Hi Yes, networks are not correct, that are example for easy explanation nothing else. I will look a bit later at another post and revert back.

@stephenw10 I received the USB enclosure, installed Windows Drivers and use the BZ31018_DIP_QMI_ModeSwitch tool . Everything is working as intended!!! Thanks all for the help. Additional info below in case any else has the same issue. Modem model: MC7710 USB enclosure used: TBD, AliExpress site not working Windows drivers: GenericDriverSetup_5087.exe from the Sierra website QMI > DIP mode switch: Search online for BZ31018_DIP_QMI_ModeSwitch.zip

It should work given what you've said here. So something must be missing.... Try to ping out from pfSense itself but set the source as the LAN address. If that fails then you have a NAT problem. Usually that's because the gateway is not applied on the interface but that cannot happen with a DHCP interface.

@jackthesmack Again pfSense on its own can do nothing here. If you're familiar with scripting and the access points provide SSH or telnet access or possibly SNMP, you can monitor the devices connections and reboot the concerned AP in case they're connected to the wrong one. I did a similar thing in the past with my Engenius AP.

@stephenw10 OK , thank you

Thanks' to all for useful tips!

@jknott said in Which AccessPoint would be recommended - Multiple or Single SSID: @gamienator-0 said in Which AccessPoint would be recommended - Multiple or Single SSID: There is a multicast bug in the firmware That TP-Link multicast bug is still around? I had it in an AP I bought 11 years ago, which prevented me from running IPv6 on my guest WiFi. It also affected some switches. I recall when I tried to get it fixed, the support said it worked the way it was supposed to, but I eventually reached 2nd level support, who agreed it was a bug. There never was an update for mine, so I wound up getting a Unifi AC-Lite a couple of years ago. This is exactly why you should stay away from tp-link, linksys, d-link and the likes. Firmware updates are scarce - if they even exist.

@stephenw10 Appreciate the guidance!

Excelllent. I added a feature request for it: https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/14050

@bavcon22 thanks for your response. It was very helpful. Don

@stephenw10 Thank you for your help.

@coltonyyz said in How Many Concurrent Wirelessly Connected Devices Can pfSense handle at once?: As the title states, I am looking to find out how many devices pfSense can handle concurrently. Can pfSense can handle 200+ concurrently connected devices? There are more points then this we should know first about all you needs or the use case of your clients. Do they only email and surf or watch they all video and push big files or much files? If your equipment is strong (powerful) enough you have no problems at all with pfSense. At the WiFi section you may go with Layer3 Switches they route the entire WiFi traffic and some wifi ap´s from ubiquiti or less but more strong ruckus or aruba wifi ap`s depending on the area you need to cover up. But building a pfSense with captive portal and voucher system and the vouchers will be send over sms is also nice to handle that amount of clients fast and fine. What is your equipment and what is your budget will round up all the points at least.

@provels said in Apple Mac Versions of AR9280/ar5bxb92? AR9380/ar5bxb1122: Thanks a lot! You're welcome - glad I could help!

Thanks guys, I'll give it a go, if the onboard wifi won't work I'll use a external access point in a client mode.

@steveits Thanks, I might give those a shot. $30 on Amazon and free return if it won't work.

@johnpoz Agreed, I too hope IoT catch up soon on security related stuff. Many nice gadgets only have wifi, and as is, I don't feel entirely comfortable using that for IoT. Of course it can and imho should, be zoned in contained vlans, but just the fact your wifi is offering your network to anyone who (can) listen, is not comforting, but very convenient. I've learned a lot on this exercize, enough to wanting to read more - WPA2 to WPA3 was indeed a big leap, and perhaps time for me to re-evaluate wifi for my purposes... :) (for now still excluding IoT)

Mmm, nothing there should have made any difference.

It may be. An external Ethernet connected device will definitely work and will give you better speeds. It can work using a modem in the 2100 though and the hardware to do it is relatively cheap as a used device. It really depends how much time you can afford to spend on the project. I did it for fun so... Steve