@doktornotor: Eeeh? That's the default. Okay, I was not sure.  thanks

@johnpoz: You could put the wifi on its own vlan if you want via just your switch and pfsense.. But that does not allow you to have say ssid Users on vlan 10 and ssid Guest on vlan 20 unless your AP support that.. But sure if you just want to isolate your AP to its own vlan - then sure create the vlan on pfsense, do the vlan on your switch and connect the AP to a port on switch in the wireless vlan.. That's what I'm going to try, that works for me. And if I can repeat the same proccess twice (I create a 2nd vlan in pfSense, then I define that 2nd same vlan in the switch and I attach another device behind them) will let me have a 2nd vlan…but if it doesn't, It's not a problem at all, I can perfectly work with just one LAN @Derelict: Why are you asking for help with those devices here? well, I think it's a good site to ask&learn about many things related to pfsense (probably the best site in internet) and being my network and most of its devices managed by pfsense, I thought this forum could be a good place to learn from the experience of other pfsense users. Yours, for example, have been very helpful, pointing the way to config the vlans. @gjaltemba: @johnpoz: Confused with that statement by gjaltemba - pfsense is more than capable of running multiple dhcp servers as long as pfsense has an interface in that network be it physical or a vlan.. Asuswrt gui gives the false impression that a Guest Network in AP mode will restrict access to your LAN but it does not. So a no cost solution would be to define vlan in switch. Asuswrt gui does not support vlan but I am going to try with ssh and script. I still cant understand what you mean about guest networks. Your suggestion of defining the vlans in the switch etc is what I'm going to try But anyway, even having just one LAN, if I just can use the Asus DSL N16U as wifi Access Point without any isolation, that would work for me.

It was actually a good question….  But your subject line stunk. You'll really find it helpful for you and those that follow when your subject lines have real meaning or at least contextual meaning...  not "NooB Question".  You're "NooB Question" would be a great opening line in the message body. I still keep a Linksys e4200 with the latest, tested DD-WRT beta from Seb (physically) sitting at my network entry as a backup for my pfSense box.  Sometimes I throw it online to confirm network issues are in my configuration - It can be a real sanity check.  You'll find pfSense and its packages are so much more powerful but for testing connectivity, DD-WRT just works. Rick

Thank you so much for your reply Harvy66. I just connect my linux computer to WAN port and window laptop to LAN port and did an iperf test again, just as you said with a lightly larger window size -w 128k I could easily reach 950+Mbps with less than 10% CPU usage and around 30% interrupt, and the best I could achieve between pfsense and computers on either WAN/LAN port was still around 500 Mbps with high CPU usage, no matter how large the tcp window I chose. Also I just thought if pfsense could achieve gigabit between WAN and LAN, it doesn't seem to be reasonable to say it could not achieve similar throughput between LAN and LAN. I ran iperf again with 128k window size and this time it could reach 800~900 Mbps even with all the LAN ports bridged together. I could not on earth remember how I was not able to reach this speed with the same window size this afternoon, perhaps I in fact forgot to test LAN<–>LAN with different window size as I naively assumed LAN<-->LAN should be definitely slower than LAN<-->Pfsense so no need for further test >:(. Your explanation about user space and kernel space of routing/iperf makes a lot of sense. Now I am confident that if I move to a place with gigabit fiber connection this pfsense box surely won't be the bottleneck. Thank you again  :D

I think the correct answer is that pfSense is not your normal home router software. It doesn't act as a server, allowing you to access data from a USB flash drive or hard drive over your network. Security-minded individuals realize that ANY server running on an internet-connected firewall is a potential security risk, and thus the functionality you're looking for is not included with pfSense "out of the box". Whether someone has packaged up Samba so that you can do what you're asking about, I don't know.

Another screenshot of the system logs not showing the 2000 entries. Why did the screen shot from the first post get removed? [image: systemlog4.jpg] [image: systemlog4.jpg_thumb]

@Foxi352: Can i choose what source address / interface PFS uses for it's own outgoing traffic ? You can use outbound NAT therefor. Firewall > NAT > Outbound By default it is set to "Automatic outbound NAT rule generation".  Check "Manual Outbound NAT rule generation" and click save. Then edit the rule WAN  127.0.0.0/8 * * * WAN address 1024:65535 NO Auto created rule for localhost to WAN  and change the Translation to LAN address. If the routing for LAN network works correctly pfSense should get its responds well this way.

blood eagle viking style I'm afraid to put that into google. :/

@doktornotor: It notifies you just fine when the IP changes. Not really sure why would you like to be notified when nothing changed. It does notify me when my ip changes?  How does it notify me?  I have notification setup via email in the webgui, do ip changes automatically send me an email by default?

This is what is in my advance box, I'm pretty sure you are right though, it is probably something in here: remote-cert-tls server;comp-lzo no;verb 4;explicit-exit-notify 5;key-direction 1;auth SHA1;keysize 256;key-method 2;tls-cipher TLS-DHE-RSA-WITH-AES-256-CBC-SHA; I just updated to 60 internet today, clearing all my logs and see what I get, pretty sure it will be the exact same.  Nice though, going through the tunnel I get 60, outside the tunnel 70.

Yeah I see that now. Thanks. I changed it to em0 and it complained so I changed it to WAN and lost LAN connectivity to it completely after applying. I will go by there tomorrow and restart it. Thanks again.

Thank you, will do as you suggested. Today is a working day, should schedule for further testing  :o

so it seems its very serious product. are there any case studies about it ? and deployement scenarios where one could read them to get more insight into it ? i need to understand it more .. maybe i might recomend it at some point if asked by someone.. i am following on this forum and wiki and general internet though . .

was it working earlier ? with which device? if it was working with pfsense and your pfsense is wokring on another ppoe then the ntu might be the culprit .. have you tried to ask them to change the port on ntu ? also can you try connecting the cable to any pc (windows ?) and configure ppoe and try connecting if it works ? if it was working on another device and nwo you introduced pfsense then you should give mac spoofing a try..

i have adsl modem running in bridge mode.. ppoe is configured on ddwrt. after some reading i found that my packets wont fragment if payload is set to 1464 bytes so add 28 bytes to it my max and optimum mtu is 1492.

Folks, problem solved – after update the issue disappeared. Hope this helps you, too. Cheers, Cyberax. :)

Determine if apinger is detecting and marking the interface down. Maybe try increasing the apinger down threshold.  Or disable apinger to see if that helps.