@Cletus:
Because it's been sent to that special IP it will go to the ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff and therefore it will be broadcasted to the correct subnet right?
Correct.
As for sending to x.x.x.255 rather than x.x.x.254. That may or may not work. Depends on if pfSense will route an IP broadcast between local subnets. The reason I use x.x.x.254 is that it can be NAT port forwarded through the firewall from external internet sources. Where as x.x.x.255 cannot. At least not in in previous versions of pfSense.
@jahonix:
An install of this size needs a budget in the range of US $10k to $20k EASILY.
Double or triple it for Ruckus/Aruba/Cisco. Take the apartments. 350 units, say an AP for every three if they're really small. That's 120 APs. Figure $200 each. That's $24K right there.
I would probably lean toward Ruckus for the apartments and Ubiquiti for the outdoor stuff (Houses). Ruckus really shines in high-density and pushing through walls. But their outdoor stuff is for high-density. Ubiquiti is pretty solid in the PTMP CPE realm. And the radios are cheap.
Do not think that you can put a few access points in cupboards somewhere and users will be happy.
Yeah - Mine is using 128.0.0.1 locally and the root servers in unbound, so maybe thats why I'm not getting the huge delay.
At any rate, with such a big delay but without failure, I figured DNS must be involved.
Don't forget, PfSnese is a stateful firewall. Best practices would be to reset states after creating rules/nat mappings, so that states must be reestablished based on your restrictions or lack there of.
