wow wow wow There goes my weekend....... Merci Muchos Guys

@grimson I don't want to do anything off regarding your Germany knowledge, as indeed the real German word is die Lichter. Du hast voellich recht. But read this this internet folklore: http://www.blinkenlichten.info/origin.html

Great. Thanks for the follow up. Steve

If you're installing as a typical firewall/router, you'd enable DHCP on it, as well as DNS.

Yes, policy routing to a particular gateway should have no effect on the outbound NAT which should still translate that to the CARP VIP. If it does not then your failover will be a lot less smooth as states will need to re-created on the other node WAN. Steve

Steve Thank you for your reply. Please accept my apologies for my late response but I have been traveling. Responding to your question, in previous applications of older pfsense versions I thought I had seen host names for mac numbers assigned in a specific pool that were not assigned as static. In version 2.4.4 I did not see this. That is the root of my question. Clearly your response makes the most sense. In any case host names can be assigned via a static ip assignment. Robert

Ah, cool. That's exactly what I saw. I got as far as opening a bug before I realised. Steve

Ha, wish I had the memory of an elephant Thanks.

Thanks! That worked.

Dude go into the resolver and put in your fqdn and IP you want it to resolve to locally... [image: 1541673395512-hostoverride-resized.png]

Can we see more of that log? It shows the mpd daemon restarting there, does it restart on each cycle? That would be unexpected. It should just try to reconnect with the existing process until it succeeds. Steve

It's almost certainly the new gateway logic. There are a number of (now fixed) bug reports relating to that. Settings it to the PPPoE gateway specifically should resolve but if not you might try a 2.4.5 snapshot that has those fixes in. Steve

If it's on a VM the drive is just a file anyway. You can just copy it off the host. Or snapshot the VM. Steve

I could see how someone might think that, but in this case we put out some updates for a few issues that some had concerns about (unbound, strongSwan, curl, libssh) and if someone needs to, they can update by hand. We don't do that often, but in this case the issues warranted an OOB update of that nature.

@stephenw10 Thank you very much, it worked, I did it the way you said it, success ... thanks a hug. reply

https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/nat/port-forward-troubleshooting.html https://www.netgate.com/docs/pfsense/nat/accessing-port-forwards-from-local-networks.html

Thank you Steven, Finally we virtualize Pfsense with Proxmox. Gab

I was able to reproduce it fairly easily, and I just pushed a fix. https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/9099

This is part of running a network - you can understand a revision or so.. Change control, maint windows - clearly these prevent just on a whim updating.. Testing should be done, etc.. But come on 2.3.2 - and they even sent out notifications that 2.3 was coming to an end over a year ago..