@podilarius: Did you go to the autoupdater settings and choose the one for your installation. Also, make sure that you have DNS setup and working. I'm using 2.0-RELEASE amd64 and this was working until I rebooted, or thereabouts. I'll have to watch more closely next time I reboot.

@brcisna: Will I be able to run parallel  bridges( current and future setup) between School A, B , & C ?  without taking down the current vpn,,, School, A to School B ,,,and bridge setup,,,,from School B to School C  as it is now? If I understand you correctly then the answer is no. If you bridge A, B, and C together then you now have two DHCP servers active on the same broadcast domain (routers A and B), giving out leases for two different networks. Example LAN host 1 (could be at any of your locations) will get a lease from DHCP server A and get routed that way, LAN host 2 will get a lease from server B and get routed that way. LAN hosts 1 and 2, if they try to talk to each other will do so through the VPN. The most obvious way to directly connect locations A, B and C without giving up the existing internet connections and vpn is to place a router at each location. That router will serve as gateway for all local hosts, and you will have a dhcp server on site (pfsense or otherwise). It's generally better to route large or outdoor wireless networks rather than bridge anyway. This prevents broadcasts from propagating across every link, and helps to contain or avoid layer 2 issues such as broadcast storms and other DOS conditions. Are you planning to keep the wireless connection between B and C, creating a triangle where each location has a direct wireless link to both of the other schools? There are advantages to that, such as load balancing and redundancy.

@bonnecomm: Would the system be expected to work better if I deleted OPT1-OPT6? Are you using the OPT interfaces to log into the modems? If you're not using them at all then you may as well delete them, but I don't see why it would help anything if your speeds are slow. I have a similar setup and it works fine. In my experience, if you have speed issues with MLPPP then it usually comes down to one of   -a low DSL sync rate on one or more modem   -packet loss on one or more modem   -mtu/mru/mrru misconfiguration Also in my experience, you're likely to get more help troubleshooting MLPPP issues in forums where there are more MLPPP users, such as the Teksavvy forum on dslreports.com. That's where you'll get more help with the troubleshooting and concepts, then you come back here if necessary for details on implementation (although there are plenty of pfsense and freebsd mlppp users in the other forums too).

grep -i mss /tmp/rules.debug output: scrub in on $FORINI all max-mss 1456 fragment reassemble It seems to be correct but if i vist some webpages which require correct MTU it doesn't work, while with other firewalls webpages are shown correctly!!! WHY?

Hi, i find the solution: i must change the read-only option: with: mount -uw /dev/ufs/pfsense0 it switched off for switched on i use: mount -ur /dev/ufs/pfsense0 THX –> to be closed

This traffic is in both ways, everything you got and sent to internet.

You have two options. you either change lan side ip subnet -OR- you bridge those interfaces but i really don't know how works with bridged connection.

There is an scp only shell built into 2.0. Just add a user and give them only the "User - System - Copy files" permission.

Anyone?

All of the NICs are on PCI slots. I just bought the 4-port NIC. It'll plug into the 16x slot on the PC.

The limit is set by 32 or 64 bits architecture, not by pfsense. 32 bits will be 3.5 gb 64 bits will be 120gb (Google told me that ;))

Why not just assign your Opt1 as static and then 1:1 NAT your public IP to it?

Thanks Chris for the explanation. I have already created limiters on the LAN side with 5Mbps up and 5Mbps down limits for all the hosts in the LAN. And have made it a point to create limiters on all the installations just to safeguard the box.

Great!!! It worked Thank you very much

@NKRA: @marcelloc: go to firewall -> virtual ips. then add 'ip alias' Hi, Would it be possible to setup the following 10.1.1.1/24  (LAN) 192.168.1.1/24 (LAN) Both IP block run on on LAN port (no VLAN) with no routing between the two and also DHCP for both IP blocks.  BTW, only have one WAN port with one public IP. Regards While you can have both subnets on a single interface, you can not have a DHCP for both ranges. Only one rsnge per interface. How would the server know out of which pool it would have to assign if 2 were available?

Not yet, no. Not that I'm aware of (yet) It's on the list of things to enhance for 2.1.

You haven't nearly outgrown the project if you're replacing with a 5510, only time that's remotely feasible is if you're at the point where you need a 5580. There is nothing on pfSense that can affect VTP in any way.