Strangely, yesterday when I tried what you suggested (adding the absolute path of wol to the command), it worked, and I set the cron job to 4PM (16.00) everyday.  Today, at 3.55PM, I was randomly chatting on my laptop and suddenly remembered that normally, my server should wake up at 4PM.. it didnt….  I wonder why!? I tried to manually launch the script via the pfsense web config (command) but it did not work.  I noticed everytime I launch the script, my router's light would flash all at one.  I imagine this means that the pfsense machine is effectively broadcasting a wol command to the network.  However, on my laptop, I successfully woke up the server using "wol 192.68.0.101"... nothing more. Is there an incompatibility between freebs and linux (slackware)?

Additionally, if you really wanted to, you could create NAT rules such that all requests from the LAN to the DNS port (53) would be redirected to the DNS server of your choice (just one though), regardless of what server the client was trying to use. This would allow invalid configs to work but still only go to the allowed server. A similar setup (not specific to DNS but should work) is described in the pfSense book when discussing NAT.

It's been a while and I'm not sure if they still do it, but the other thing I've seen from OpenDNS is that they've (transparent) proxied Google in the past, to resolve a specific issue they were having. I discovered this when I was using it and Google wouldn't load for anyone (a proxy issue on their end) but everything else worked. I forget what the exact reason was (there was a technical reason that went along with the way they were doing "shortcuts" or something), and like I said I don't know if they still do this. I haven't had any issues with that or any other part of the service for a long time, and I use them pretty regularly.

Still dead, heres the error: 503 Service Unavailable No server is available to handle this request. Post them here or at a different site. Are you trying to have each nic point to the other? because thats what you are doing and it wont work. Heres what one would do for a basic setup WAN:Card1: DHCP or Static LAN: Card 2: 192.168.1.1/24

Sorry, that I have not reply to this for a while. If I am going to use the option 1 how do I physically connect both networks, I am guessing an ordinary patch cable would work by connecting it to pfsense OPT2 and the other end was connected to sonicwall available port. Is this how you connect to establish the connection? Thanks.

The way "DNS override" works is exactly how it sounds.  If a LAN client makes a DNS request for a resource that you've configured a DNS override for, the DNS forwarder will reply with that IP address instead of the IP address the DNS server which has authority for that device would.  As an example, if you had a web server inside your DMZ and it was called dmz.webserver.cx, there would be a DNS server somewhere with that machine's public IP address.  If you were trying to access that device from inside your LAN, you would not want to try to connect to the public IP address of that device, that would be inefficient (and wouldn't work without using NAT reflection which is an ugly hack).  Instead, you'd configure a DNS override so that your DNS forwarder would hand back the private IP address of that device and the connection would be made directly from LAN -> DMZ instead of LAN -> WAN -> DMZ.  Glad you have it working, I hope this makes the rest clear.

@torontob: In the meanwhile, if I use SSH tunneling to webGUI what if the SSH service of the router goes down? That would be still crazy as I will again lock myself out. Wouldn't I? Yes but I've seen about every problem there is to see, and never seen that happen. There's a much higher probability that the web interface will become inaccessible or unresponsive (though virtually always only if you're messing with non-stable packages).

ah yes.  I forgot to uncheck the box that allows dhcp to override the dns servers.  So now I'm getting answers from 208.67.222.222!  Perfect!  Thank you!

No.  The web interface for pfSense exists only within pfSense.

Hi there, Thanks for the quick response. I apologize for not stating the hardware of the PFsense box. It does have two NICs. One from the motherboard and the other is a Intel GT NIC. So from what you have just said. I can simply leave it up to the VMed PFsense to do the DHCP and so forth. Thanks!

Hey all. I'm gonna revive this thread here. I, too, am seeing alot of miniupnpd[806]: HTTP Connection closed inexpectedly in my 'System Logs'. I have a PS3 and it seems that after I'm done playing online with it, my PC's on the LAN seem to time out briefly [roughly 60 secs.] after sending requests for web pages. A Google search lead me to this page – http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/show/122. So I take it I'm stuck with this for now until 2.0. Unless anyone has any ideas on a manual patch/fix?

@420: There are two NIC's: 1, onboard Ethernet Port: Realtek 8201CL LAN PHY(supports 10/100Mb/s auto negotiation operation) 2. Is the Linksys WRT54G PCI wireless Card. Are you sure about the WRT54G PCI wireless card? I thought Linksys WRT54G was a range of wireless routers? @420: whats best to use as since i have one Etherenet port NIC and the other is Linksys pci wireless, should the lan be wireless or should lan be hardwired ? should the wan be hardwired or should it be wirelessly ? I would recommend: ISP…....> cisco 2100 modem........> (Wired WAN) pfSense  (wired LAN)  ->  DLink 4500 router: port[1]comp1–-port[2]comp2–-port[3]comp3–-port[4]xbox360 This requires an additional wired NIC for the pfSense box. As suggested in the documentation pages (http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Use_an_existing_wireless_router_with_pfSense, other links in http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Category:Wireless might be interestng reading) you would use one LAN port of the DLink to connect to pfSense and leave the DLink WAN port unconnected. You would probably need to tweak a few things to use the pfSense DHCP server for your whole network. Having a wired LAN port can be very useful if you need to troubleshoot. Until you find out the real model number (and probably revision) of the wireless PCI card its not possible to say if its supported in pfSense. To provide web filtering (blocking of nasty sites) you would need to add packages such as squid and squid guard or use something like one of the OpenDNS services (see http://www.opendns.com). Which one you choose would probably depend on the level of blocking you require. I use pfSense as a wireless access point and firewall. I appreciate having one box to manage rather than two. Others have reported that they get better reliability with a separate wireless access point.

Nothing because the gateway address is only used when the interface is a WAN type interface, in scenario #3 it's a second LAN and no gateway address is needed.

@wallabybob: Some more details would help. @Keljian: the pfsense box is routing at about 5-6mbit. Measured where? Doing what? @Keljian: When connected directly to the airport extreme I get line speed (11~ mbit) First mention of the airport. When what is directly connected to the airport? The airport is connected to what? And what is the airport extreme? (If I had to guess I'd say I suspect its an Apple sourced Wifi Access Point and LAN switch but it seems a fairly generic name so I'm not clear about its purpose.) Some simple diagrams would help clarify the configurations you are comparing. Ok draytek 2700 -> pfsense box (pppoe client)-> (recent) apple airport extreme -> (wireless) macbook pro  = 6mbit down from speedtest.net and max of 500KB/s download from akami (in australia) vs draytek 2700 -> apple airport extreme (pppoe client) -> macbook pro  = 11mbit down from above sources Airport is: http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/ apple airport extreme is a 4 port gigabit switch/router with 2 channel wireless n

You're welcome. I'll try not to sit and wonder for too long what your modem is going to tell you about your voip usage. ;)

Don't bother with nano though, just use ee, it's just as easy and already built-in. As for the install-info error, it's harmless. The package still installs, but doesn't install the info pages (like man pages but usually more in-depth)

The ARP table is used to determine if a client is online/offline on the DHCP-leases page. It would be only always in the ARP table if you activated the "Enable Static ARP entries" option. Of course in this case the DHCP-leases page then always shows the device as "online" regardless of the actual status. But as soon as the client communicated with pfSense the device should show up in the table.

@clarknova: I tried diagramming what you have described and it's pretty confusing. Mind you, I'm pretty novice. One things stands out to me though, you have 2 switches, and yet you have opted to run LAN and WAN on both switches. If you want to review a thorough discussion on why this is bad, have a look at this recent thread on the mailing list: http://marc.info/?l=pfsense-support&m=128098748819739&w=2 I've never used pfsync, so I won't comment on that, but I think the first thing to do would be to plug your internet connections and pfsense WAN ports into SW1. Plug your server NICs and pfsense LANs into SW2. Arrange your vlans the way you like and put your loop woes behind you. For the LAN WAN issue on both switches I saw that issue too. I had bought 2 addition switches to handle the WAN connections and got rid of the VLAN problem. I ran into another problem though with WAN Failover not working right because the WANs were on the same subnet. So I ended up witha whole new solution: I Got rid of the Dual WANs on each PF and just went with single WAN connctions on each. I plugged the independant WAN cables from the datacenter directly into each PF WAN port. I am just using the 2 Dell switches now and have the LANs of each PF going to different switches. All servers have 4 NICs that are loadbalanced, having 2 cables going to each switch for redundancy. This way I can loose a switch and everything will still work. I also set up carp between the PF's So I could loose a WAN and still get out and same with loosing a LAN. It seems this setup is alot cleaner and is working great. The 2 WAN lines coming from the datacenter are already running HSRP on their end. Jon