If your modem has your name and password in it, then it is doing PPPoE for you, and pfSense should just use DHCP on WAN. If it's a half bridge, you may be better off doing a factory reset on the modem, which should make it act like a bridge, and then setting pfSense up for PPPoE.

This is definitely a challenging problem. I looked at your second ps output and saw irq18: fxp0 is the biggest consumer of CPU time. The startup output shows irq18 is shared by fxp0 and atapci0. This means the disk driver is called every time the fxp requests an interrupt. This is suboptimal. There may be a BIOS setting to set the disk controller into LEGACY mode rather than NATIVE mode. In legacy mode the disk will use irq14 and irq15. The shell command vmstat -i can be used to check interrupt line assignment. See if you can get the disk to use irq14 and irq15 and see if that makes a difference to who is using the most CPU. The next biggest CPU consumer is em0 taskq. The startup output shows irq16 is shared by vgapci0 and em0. Again, this could mean (I don't know if the vgapci driver uses interrupts) the vga driver is called for every em0 interrupt. It could be worth trying to eliminate that sharing by (possibly) moving the Intel GigE NIC to another slot so that em0 get assigned a different irq (not 16 and not 18). It appars the video card is a AGP card so there is probably no scope for moving that to a different slot to eliminate interrupt sharing. Since there are no USB devices listed in the startup I presume the BIOS has been configured to disable USB devices. This is a good idea (if you aren't using USB devices) since it helps reduce interrupt sharing. I don't know if the motherboard includes any PCI Express slots. If it does, it could be worth trying an Intel PCI Express GigE NIC because the OS may be able to initialise it to use MSI (Message Signalled Interrupts) which would give it a dedicated interrupt line. However, the system chipset might be too old to support MSI correctly. I took another look at the information you provided and it appears that though the FreeBSD startup says the disk controller atapci0 uses irq18 the interrupt listing says its using irq14 and irq15. Perhaps the system is confused in which case it could be worth seeing if it has the most current BIOS and updating if there is a more recent BIOS available.

At least for me it does not wrap around at 4 GB on the interfaces page in 2.0.  It also does not have the 4 GB note on that page anymore.  I haven't checked whether the dashboard widget also works correctly.

Hmm, right now I'm being very (understatement) surprised… Book shipped on January 30, arrived just now. I have never seen the British mail work this fast.

@jyavenard: however "Other" only let met define one IP address; no netmask nothing … Just for completeness, I'll point out I found it possible to add multiple "Other" Virtual IP addresses but had to do so one address at a time. Concerning sipproxyd, in case you meant siproxd, siproxd works fine for me on pfSense 1.2.3 RELEASE provided I use suitable VOIP applications. More details at http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,18204.0.html. The siproxd maintainers might be interested in some more details of the problem you had.

That just shows you how little I know  ::) Any recommendations on how big I should go? Thanks for the links.

http://www.myupload.dk/showfile/42464048989.zip/ http://pfsense.comuf.com/packages/All/wink-pfsense-theme.zip

You really do not need the NIC. It is all depend in the bottleneck is located.  Just like cry havok said the best answer to that is "maybe".

Thanks Jim.

There isn't much documentation, because it's an undocumented (and sort of unsupported) feature :) There is a shellcmd package that you can install to add more commands. They are, as the name implies, shell commands. Only real trick to them is you'd likely need to give the full path to a command.

Alright Ill give that a go and let you know.  Thanks!

I enabled DHCP and in the rules field only passed PPPOE for source and Destination, and enabled everything under the PPPOE field in rules, and it's working fine. Thanks Jimp.

If lan and wan interface same subnets (e.g:1.1.1.1/24) , problem is. I could not find a solution  ???

@futurecis: Unfortunately, my circumstances will not allow me to do it this way. I am not just hosting webservers. I have to be able to host email, web, and several other applications/services. For example, if I have abc.com and xyz.net, i need to be able to have PF support both domains as well as all sub-domains associated with them. I can point my registrar to my one public facing IP so all internet traffic to both domains would come to my IP. However, I need the ability to control where traffic for each domain will go once it gets to me. At this point, I do not see how PF can handle that since it only supports one domain handle. I don't know specifically about pfSense (and I already hear about people wondering why do you answer then…) I'm assuming that you have the typical setup where when you connect to your ISP , you get a single IP address and they then route a subnet to you. Say you connect, you get allocated 210.210.210.1 ; the subnet being routed to you is: 58.179.125.1/28 (14 usable IPs) create an alias on a network card (either the one on the WAN, or one that isn't your LAN) ifconfig alias xl0 58.179.125.2 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig alias xl0 58.179.125.3 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig alias xl0 58.179.125.3 netmask 255.255.255.255 etc... for all 14 Then you create a static NAT from 58.179.125.2 -> LAN 192.168.0.30 natd.conf would contain: redirect_address 192.168.0.30 58.179.125.2 the default gateway of 192.168.0.30 is the LAN address of the gateway of course. That's it. Now if you can do that in pf web interface, I'm all for it ; because that's precisely what I will be looking at doing .. Cheers Jean-Yves

@wallabybob: I don't have anything like your complexity to deal with. My pfSense box acts as DHCP server on LAN interface, Wireless LAN interface (bridged to LAN) and OPTx interface (links to local server on separate network from family PC's and accessible from the internet). It also acts as DHCP client on WAN interface (connects to ISP). Other contributors to these forums seem to be able to use PPPoE. Don't know why you think pfSense doesn't support DHCP or PPPoE. Was there something particular in the FAQ that suggested that? Hi. From there: http://www.pfsense.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=43 (the main feature page) "Only works with static public IPs, does not work with DHCP, PPPoE, PPTP, or BigPond type WANs (will be resolved in a future release)" Ahh, I see what my mistake was… I read too fast, this is for "redundancy" only :)

I don't think that is something that would be easy to do, and even if it was, it probably isn't cheap enough to be worth it, especially if the computer already has its own power supply. By the way, there are packages available for the NanoBSD builds, and I think squid may have been one of them.

That is normal, on mine one light is one even with a cable unplugged. Not quite sure what that is supposed to indicate. They both blink with activity.