You only need siproxd if ALL of these are true:

You have multiple phones connecting to a remote PBX, or multiple PBXs More than one of the phones connects to the same remote PBX The PBX requires that the source port be 5060 for the phone's SIP traffic (this is not very common these days)

In most cases multiple phones work fine now with zero adjustments so long as the PBX doesn't assume/enforce a 5060 client source port.

I wasn't angry.  Glad it works.

@trunix:

@Hollander:

Might I jump in to ask a question that relates to this? Is the following possible:

My download server gets unlimited download unless my wife or me are using the internet;

Then the download server is automatically capped off during that time, and gets full bandwith again if neither my wife nor me are using the internet.

The reason I ask is: currently I have to restrict the server bandwith manually in the morning (on the server self), and cancel that restriction at night (so it can download at full speed while we are sleeping).

Sometimes my wife is up earlier than I am (so she will suffer from not having sufficient bandwith since that hasn't been restricted yet), the other times I simply forget to do it (and when I come home I meet an angry mrs.  :-[).

Would this be possible?

Thank you in advance for any reply  ;D

Bye,
[/quote]

You can use the traffic shaper to lower the priority of the protocol (bit torrent?) being used by your download server. Whenever any other traffic is present on your network during the day (you and/or your wife surfing, checking email, etc.), the download server throughput is suppressed. At night, when nothing else is using your bandwidth, the server gets full access.

My apologies for not responding sooner, and thank you for your reply  :P

@stephenw10:

Separating your wireless and wired traffic is something I would recommend just to make it easier to control your traffic.

If you want to get a paranoia level of security you could setup a vpn server in pfSense and then configure your wireless interface firewall rules to only allow access to that. Then all your wireless devices would have to connect to the vpn server to get access to anything. VPN encryption level can be anything you choose.  Potentially you could use two factor authentication or something!  ;)

Steve

I still have to do this all, but I don't have enough time  :-\

Thank you for your reply, Steve  ;D

It has been my experience that some major configuration changes to pfSense don't correctly clear the old values so that new values can properly take effect. I suggest you save (but not apply) the LAN IP subnet change then reboot for it to take effect.

@itson:

when i type the voucher it just seems like refreshes the page doesnt redirect and doesnt let me connect to the internet.

I would be helpful to know what the browser did do (for example, what was shown in the location bar? did the browser report a name resolution problem?) as well as what it didn't do.

@itson:

after trying to figure out what it could be and started getting calls from customers that they cant connect, i quickly had to change ip and dhcp ips back to 192.168.1.1 range

PERHAPS some of these customers still had DHCP leases for IP addresses in the 192.168.1.x range.

PERHAPS you needed to restart Captive Portal (Disable then enable) after the IP address change.

Yep - I learned something also.

@jimp:

pkg_add -r lrzsz

Then use lrz to start a zmodem receive.

Awesome!

Thank you,

-A

As an update:

I THINK ive resolved this….wasnt PfSense causing this at all, it was TMG.

"strict RPC compliance" was on. Turn it off, and thus far, works fine, as well as fixing a few other minor issues which i assume use RPC or DCOM.

Im still testing but it'll be hilarious if a protocol that MS products rely on to work, is "broken" by a MS product too. :p

You could go internet > TOR > PFSENSE > LAN Clients.

The TOR box could be either a small cheap/old stand alone computer you put between pfsense and the internet or you could get TOR up and running inside pfsense.  The last option isn't supported out of the box.

I'm sure VPN providers are no more likely to protect your privacy than facebook is.

haha.

I glossed over the "If I plug a laptop into the port and manually set the LAN ip on the laptop with one of the public ip's it works great."

Yes.  Static IP.  However, I'm wondering about his 8 IPs since he will only get one if he doesn't take steps to see all 8?

I see a nice youtube video on that here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrBr0N0WrTY

@stephenw10:

The box should remain responsive though.

Responsive - not really. Was barely recoverable by reverting to previous config via serial console.

Not enough of the exchange to really tell from that, but probably a difference such as PAP vs CHAP or other settings in the RADIUS server that govern what it claims to support.

It could also be a difference in the compile-time options given to freeradius and not in the config file.

They may not timeout, mine don't under normal use. There's an easy fix anyway.  :)

Steve

when you boot into single user mode, do:

fsck -y -t ufs /
fsck -y -t ufs /
(yes, twice)
mount -a -t ufs
pwd_mkdb -p /etc/master.passwd

Thank you both for your answer, I will digest it  ;D

Great!!

Thank you!!

@stephenw10:

It's handled by the FreeBSD lagg(4) interface which can do both loadbalancing and failover (and some other stuff). It's worth noting though that it acheives the extra bandwidth by load-balancing the two connections. Thus to see any benefit you need to have multiple IP connections running across it. In your case that shouldn't be a problem because in routing between two VLANs via pfSense you will always have two streams connections.

Steve

I actually have a total of 5 VLANs that use the pfSense box as a gateway– 2 on one interface, 3 on the other.

I guess I should leave them separate rather than mess with combining them and possibly creating other issues. shrug