I might need to rephrase the question since I got no answer so far. Is it possible to forward a tagged VLAN (7) from WAN to an INTERNAL OPTx in pfsense? And if so, how? I have looked in QinQ and Brdige, but that did not work so far…

Yep, seems I mixed it up, over all my setup was 750, I was shooting for power efficient and long term setup.

Make sure you have your default LAN rule setup. Firewall->Rules->LAN  

Agreed. What's the point of implementation if it does not do what it's supposed to do? Implementation of SMART is supposed to report prior to failure. NetGate/PfSense guys, this should be fixed or removed from the GUI. I'd personally like to see it fixed. I'd also like to see some kind of email reporting if a rule had been triggered. Say in this case, if a CAM error had been seen in the system logs, then the system would email.

Hello, I attached a "Packet Capture": it seems that the communication with radius server never starts. – Regards, Marco Mangiante [image: vpn_vdf_pfsense_client.png] [image: vpn_vdf_pfsense_client.png_thumb]

All of the NIC's interrupted pinned to the same CPU is a strange setup. Could be more of a corner case than a bug, but it does sound undesirable.

pfSense itself does not have an HTTP(S) timeout, only a TCP timeout, which defaults to 24 hours. If you're running a proxy, your proxy may need to have the HTTP(S) timeout configured.

I would do a clean install and re-apply the config. The only barf you are likely to see is maybe pfSense will complain about the NIC's and you'll need to re-set that bit.

Thanks for the info! I will try this first thing tomorrow-

General For things that do not fit into one of the more specific categories below.

I bought a T-shirt and Polo.  Pretty cheap all things considered.

Thank you :)

OK, it seems like getting what you want requires some "hacking" and additional stuff installed. While this can be great stuff and huge success when finally getting it to work, keeping the systems updated and patched (and patchable!) with these hacks will most likely be a pain in the ass in the long run. The extra hour spent on "manual identity management" (which you can document thoroughly by spending another hour on it) may well be worth it in the end.

Just an FYI for the future. A S.M.A.R.T test is just that. A Quick Smart scan of the hard drive. It checks general and most known hard drive failure causes. But not all of them. If you suspect a hard drive of issues, it's always best to remove it from whatever unit it is in and perform a full diag using tools that can perform deep scans for issues. This will tell you for sure if it is the hard drive are not. I've had Smart tests pass where deep scans will show corruptions in the disk. There are tons of free tools that can do the job. I personally use LifeGuard by Western Digital.

"log :587." I find it highly unlikely that spam would be using port 587.. Unless the user was sending it on purpose through a smart host and authing to the smart host as well.  This would not be tracked back to your IP.

The export package is not intended to be used by end-users. There is no way for a user to login and download just their own client.