Thanks  ;) and well poo the's packets are killing my net man >:( , ill get a hold of my ISP and see what they can do.

Oups, just found myself… I can reach the Gigabit by increasing the tcp windows size.

At least could be usefull for others :)

It's more than a convention. What you are entering in that box is gateways for pfSense to use that are on that interface. For a WAN interface that will be the upstream gateway, usually your ISP but could be a modem if you're double NATing. For a LAN interface it will usually be left empty because there are no gateways on the LAN network that the pfSense box can use. But that's not always the case. If you have another router on the LAN side and it has another subnet behind it that pfSense will use that router as a gateway to the other subnet. Without it packets addressed to the other subnet will have no route. In that case you must enter the downstream router as a gateway on LAN.

Steve

Oh yeah, I tired resetting the router to factory defaults and with nothing but the basic configurations it is still happening.

It really depends on your use case. Here at home I could use a really long password that I couldn't type reliably blind because viewing as I type it isn't ever a problem. If I'm logging in remotely over a VPN that might not be suitable as I could be overlooked as I type. That very rarely happens to me but that's just my own usage.
As I said I can't really see any drawbacks to having more options (as long as it's hidden by default) but I have no idea how easy it would be implement.

Steve

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, OK. I also found some other posts about it.

I got further along in the configuration, but the dmesg output on the monitor says "zyd0: HOSTAP mode not supported". So, back to the drawing board…

Interesting idea. Not sure about the security implications of having any hypervisor software being public facing but definetly something to look at.

i'm guessing upon LAN-disconnect, pfsense runs a script to remove the routes/rules/… for LAN
because your route for LAN & OPT1 is the same, it affects opt1 and makes your firewall unreacheable.

this is a guess, but i'm probably not incredibly far off target.
as others have pointed out, don't attempt this.... it'll probably be possible with some manual hacking, but why bother? There are plenty of other ways to accomplish your goal.

@Olman:

So … Gurus ....

Any one can explain why do operate on LAN Interface, such as disconnect cable, will affect other interfaces like OPT1 and OPT2.

BUT disconnection OPT1 or OPT2 do not affect other.....
Without empty chat, "it wrong", "outsmart" e.t.c. ; don't watering thread

I have tons of installation of pix, netsceen  some times, they behave out of logic,  but none of them just shut interface 1 and 2 when interface 1 got disconnected....

back to the business:
will check if such behavior exist on 2.0.3 later ...
and it remote network, i can operate within existing /16 network ... so any advise of separate nets, don't work

If anyone ever needed a seriously low-watt and super reliable box, its you.
I bet people there have seriously considered putting a DC-Dyno on a bicycle frame.

You can open a ticket yourself on RedMine. However, if it is already fixed in FreeBSD 9 and later, then it will just fix itself for pfSense 2.2 on FreeBSD 10.

Generally speaking, no things aren't slower in the GUI where everything is 100% identical. There are the possibilities jim-p mentioned.

The base OS of 2.x is slightly faster pushing packets than 1.x's base OS versions. The most important job performance-wise has only improved in 2.0.x and 2.1. How much depends on your specific hardware and combination of hardware, but generally 5% or so improvement on top end performance going from 1.2.3 to 2.1.

@tomdlgns:

will this thread be updated when the release is ready?

There will be an official announcement.

The entire 2.1 board here would usually be retired and locked once the release happens.

Hi jimp

Thank you I will try to Update today.

regards

supermega

Yeah - I've only faced this issue when setting up a pfsense in a VM with a single interface and no LAN at all.  (Just using it as a Openvpn server)

Thanx evry1 :)