@Dave:

I've seen this same thing with Chrome on one of my Macs (but oddly, not on another).  I resolved it by using the Clear Browsing Data… option to clear everything.

That worked :). Sorry pfSense mods!

Having just come back from a very frustrating day at work, this sounds like the best thing I heard today. Thanks man, I'll look into this.

thx for reply.

On log no one answer for Who kill it, just exiting on SIGTERM (kill -SIGTERM dnsmasq)… Is there some log more specific on shell that I get more answer like /var/log/messages (OS linux like)?

This happen third time with me, I´m thinking this problem happen just w/ specific hardware, cause in my T300 (DELL) this not happen w/ 30 users.

Regards,

Heitor Lessa

Why not a Vlan capable switch with the license server on default Vlan and PFsense with one Vlan'ed interface and loadbalanced WAN??

Then you can define exactly what kind of traffic that is allowed to pass through the different segments.

@danswartz:

sounds like something got corrupted. reinstall?  i would recommend 1.2.3.

Yep, thanks. Did the trick… once I fixed the machine post-upgrade. I blame this more on my old dodgy hardware rather than pfsense though.

what is strange is that im having the same pfsense log with or without spoofing the mac (I always have the NIC mac adress)
maybe the spoofing is not working after all  ??? ???
plus in the 2.0 ALPHA the WAN mac adress is no longer shown in "Satus"-> "Interfaces" as previous versions.. can u put back guys ? ;)

nomac.jpg
nomac.jpg_thumb

If you don't have much load, the load balancing won't be equal because of the way slbd functions. The first connection every 5 seconds goes to one server, so if you only have 1 connection or less every 5 seconds, you'll never hit the other servers. As your load increases, it becomes balanced, so slbd's quirk isn't really a problem, it balances when you actually have enough load to need load balancing. And failover will remove that server from the pool so you have redundancy. Once you have a decent amount of load (20 or more connections per 5 seconds) the balancing equals out. I don't think that's detailed in the wiki, it is in the load balancing chapter of the book. http://pfsense.org/book

If you dont have a rule to allow it: yes it will be blocked.

There is another entry in the drop-down: "any"
If you dont have a rule allowing any, then the protocols not specifically allowed, will be blocked.

There is some support for 3G devices in 2.0. I don't recall the specific models supported, however.

Thank You!
:D 8)

I once had for a LAN-party a setup with 4xGbit + 1x100 Mbit NICs.
Each Gbit NIC had 12 VLANs on it.
–> A total of 47 OPT (+LAN +WAN).

@trentdk:

I'm just curious as to why the Linksys router was supposedly sending information (a lot, apparently) while purely downloading, whereas the pfSense router, more expectedly, does not 'send' anything while downloading.

If you are downloading over a TCP connection (e.g. ftp, http) there is no such thing as a "pure download". The TCP protocol requires the transmission of ACKs to acknowledge data, hence there will be an apparent "upload" of "control" information as well as the data download. This is true regardless of the router.

I suspect there isn't any precise specification of what the SEND light means, so it could be misleading to read too much into it.

Great post about how to set the embedded device into RW mode. This has baffled me for a while and has now allowed me to add files into the rc.d folder!!

Thanks.

I fixed the problem by disabling hardware checksum offloading.

Not sure - the ZyXEL is also NATing, so it seems unlikely that that is the problem - unless something's not quite right with either the Speedtouch or pfSense.

Regardless of hardware checksumming on or off, It seems the dropout connectivity has reared is ugly head with Hardware Checksum Offloading disabled, after it was working for me for awhile. All I did was change the WAN interface link from 100 Half Duplex to 100 Full Duplex… Shrugs

I am beginning to feel that this box is not cooperating or compatible with FreeBSD In the sense that we need it to be, I am thinking of giving up and trying other hardware, any last thoughts? I really apprecaiate the help so far but I don't think I can single this issue out so well if it keeps happening without any explanation of origin