… and if you want to weight one connection over another, add multiple entries for the connection you want used more often.

FYI, I'm running 2.0 and the process listed in the wiki didn't work for me (dsl in bridge mode with pfsense doing the pppoe). I could ping the modem (192.168.0.1) from the pfsense box, but nothing else on the LAN could. What I did was add the OPT interface, set its IP to 192.168.0.2, and instead of leaving the gateway blank, added a gateway that points to itself (192.168.0.2). I then added a route to the 192.168.0.0 subnet with the OPT int as the gateway. Didn't have to add an outbound NAT entry. EDIT: I did need to add a NAT entry for it to work right.

Thanks; this looks like some pretty complicated stuff though: http://freeradius.org/ ??? Besides for IPCOP do you know if any of these have a feature that can do it? http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/7-of-the-best-linux-firewalls-697177?artc_pg=1 ::)

On 2.0 you can use ranges in an alias, but what it really does is translate that alias into an equivalent set of CIDR masked proper subnets. On 1.2.3 you can get this functionality by installing the package for IP Ranges in aliases.

Known issue: http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/1243 Still needs some work.

Before what i am doing with the pfsense pc i just follow how the router were configured, i am using PPPOe settings from pfsense pc configuration and does give me internet access for all the users passing thru the pfsense, now i am really not sure what settings or configuration should i be set on the pfsense pc. If anyone could give me an idea what configuration should i be setting on the pfsense to follow or to coordinate with my ISP provider router to coordinate and not to everytime disconnecting the router. i am newbie with pfsense but i found it really useful and very reliable firewall

hi, did you fix the problem?! i have the same here and no solution  :(

As Cry Havok pointed out in his links, this has been asked and answered many times.  There is no announced release date.  The pfSense developers do not announce long term release dates.  There are a number of bugs to fix in 2.0, and they are being worked on.  When they're fixed, then 2.0 will be released.  Please do a little searching before asking questions.

For some configurations a static route would be an easy solution. submicron's suggestion seems better suited to your environment.

That is the dashboard for 2.0 beta. If your using 2.0 beta then click the + box at the top to customize your setup and save… There was and still may be a package to add this to 1.2.3...  Im not sure if it is still available or not.

Not really. The gateway status isn't exposed by anything directly on the system like that for snmp… I suppose if an agent for any of those can execute a script you could hack together a gateway status script that would pass the info back to your NMS. Doing that is still probably easier (and better from a logic standpoint) than sending out an e-mail when a gateway is down.

haha thanks, unfortunately i don't have enough from for additional NICs (yet) and i was using plip to test some stuff in order to get approval for a hardware upgrade I'll try upgrading the backup box to the release and see if its still capable of doing what we're currently doing with the RC version

If you connect your linksys router to OPT1 then you can configure pfSense to use both WAN connections for load balancing or failover. I would have thought you would want to use both if you are paying for them. Rename OPT1 as WAN2 for simplicity. Leave DHCP on in the Linksys and have pfSense get it's IP for WAN2 that way. Traffic going via WAN2 will be double NATed but that usually works fine just make sure they're using different subnets and you have unchecked 'block private networks' in pfSense. This way if your pfSense box expires (why would it?) you only have to move one cable, from pfSense LAN into the Linksys, to get back on line. You don't even have to reconfigure anything. Steve

VPN - possibly to a server you own since the common VPN providers will almost certainly be blocked. I've taken that approach in the past and it's worked well for me.