Thanks for the reply, I have ammended config.xml. Cheers

Split into new topic as it was completely unrelated to the hijacked thread (please don't append to another thread unless it's clearly identical, this isn't even close to the same). As for the problem: wallabybob posted some good questions, not enough info here to tell you anything.

Look on the doc wiki at the Multi-WAN howto. There are instructions there that cover everything you need to do, such as making load balance/failover pools or perhaps just policy routing. Even if you don't follow it exactly, just read through and get an idea of what is going on and how things are done you should be able to adapt it to your setup.

Well, it has been over 4 days since I added a new switch between the WAN port and the ISP equipment, so that I could also add a second device with an IP address to that switch to try pinging in case of an outage. Fortunately(?) the system has not gone down since making this change.  I am starting to think that the problem may have been with the hardware.  I had a different cheap switch in place before, which may have been causing the problem. I'll keep watching…

Thanks!

I setup a test network with just one laptop and the pfsense box. I set everything back to defaults and went through the wizard setup using dhcp and dns on the pfsense box. Everything came up workikng great. I then updated to 1.2.3 and put it back on my production network and turned off dhcp on the pfsense box and everything came fine. Don't know if it was the update or my isp since I was trying to bounce back and forth from the pfsense box to my old router trying different configs and checking this forum. Thanks for your help and quick responses. I'm really looking forward to using this firewall for a long time to come.

Ok, I assume it's nothing to worry about

Hi onhel Thank you very much, I just did not see that. Problem is solved. cheers hafnix

In general, you would do something like- Go to Firewall, Virtual IPs. Add the outside IPs. Setup outside to inside maps via Firewall, NAT, 1:1 Go to Firewall, Rules, WAN, and create rules to allow the traffic. eg- TCP * * 1.0.0.124 80 * * etc… Although you could just use port-forwards instead of 1:1 NAT.

Okay.. something has happened and it does appear to be an automagic type thing.  Don't know how but it is now working!  W00t!.. I think LOL! Anyhow, thanks for all the help guys!  It is mucho appreciated!

@excel905: Would it be possible to use the router as a "hub" for more connections since my PC only has 2 network adapters (One for the WAN the other for LAN), Yes and would it be possible to use the wireless interface from the router for wireless connections aswell. Yes, provided the router supports that. (Perhaps the router's wireless support is only for a point to point link, perhaps the wireless support is not for WiFi etc etc) Hope i provided enough information. Enough to say that "in principle" it can be done.

Shawn…. It is moving towards small boxes and not old powerguzzling hardware.....;) Either small boxes or 1U appliances build into new home networks. Many people today have NAS and other things stashed in their basement, and surprisingly enough, many have small racks(at least here in Sweden/Scandinavia). Just for your info....

Sounds like its a HTTP or TCP specific problem particular to the path through the wireless AP. You mentioned VLANs - they require some additional header bytes reducing the space available for data. Maybe you are losing a packet in the HTTP response because its too long. It might help to do a tcpdump on a few nterface to verify that large packets are getting to your client or to the wireless AP.  On this, the last time I looked, it wasn't clear from the documentation whether or not tcpdump showed packets that were discarded by the NIC driver. That is, a packet that is discarded by the NIC driver might still appear in the trace on the sending side even though it doesn't make it to the wire.

This one seems to be the biggest reported one so far: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,7668.msg43776.html#msg43776