@alexandre-dezembro

Scenario example:

https://uploaddeimagens.com.br/imagens/pfsense-png

@jimp @stephenw10

Can confirm that patch has fixed the issue. Thanks for looking into it.

[2.4.3-RELEASE][admin@pfSense.localdomain]/root: cat /boot/loader.conf.local comconsole_port="0x2e0" legal.intel_wpi.license_ack=1 legal.intel_ipw.license_ack=1 legal.intel_iwi.license_ack=1

the solution is this:
in the config file (/usr/local/etc/netdata/netdata.conf), change the line:

bind to = 127.0.0.1

to

bind to = *

and restart the netdata service:

kill <pid> service netdata onestart

As jahonix mentions, any software that wants to put in a url to pool in their software as default is asked to create their own unique fqdn for the pool, etc. So this is pfsense playing nice with ntp.org

http://www.pool.ntp.org/vendors.html

Anyone smart to even look into where or what its using for ntp should prob change this to either their own ntp servers of choice or the fqdn pool urls for their region of the globe.

For example if you want to use the pool and your in the US you should use say

server 0.us.pool.ntp.org server 1.us.pool.ntp.org server 2.us.pool.ntp.org server 3.us.pool.ntp.org

You can find a full listing here

http://www.pool.ntp.org/zone/@

Thank you for all.

Just to update this. It appears that the install on pfSense was somehow corrupt, a full reinstall gave me back access to the GUI via my VPN!

Thank you Stephen, I'll do that right now.

Honestly, unless there is a problem I don't waste my time tweaking for that extra 1 ms. Netgate uses resolver by default because it just works out of the box without the need to specify upstream servers. If you're concerned with speed, use the forwarder with your ISP's local DNS.

As for testing, DNS Bench by Steve Gibson is one such tool.

Not really. If you're using the SDEC driver though they will be connected to the input pins on the parallel port. You could try reading the port directly.
Probably easier to just try various combinations of the buttons specified by the driver until they line up.

Steve

That^.
Seems like a fairly accurate description to me.

There are 3rd party apps for controlling Denon/Marantz stuff. One of those might work for you.

Steve

So what IS working here?

Do you have DHCP enabled on OPT1? Are clients pulling a lease from it?

With outbound NAT in manu7al mode you will have to add outbound NAT rules for the new OPT1 subnet.

Do you see any alerts in the GUI? It may be failing to load the new ruleset correctly. You should still be able to ping from LAN to OPT1 though even without any new rules.

Steve

Anything special in your unbound config? Assuming you're running unbound.

Steve

If your ISP can only provide those IPs to you directly on the WAN, rather then routing them to you via a different public IP, then your options are limited.

You can setup IPAliases for those publlic IPs on the WAN connection and then 1:1 NAT them to private IPs internally. That means the servers using them cannot have a public IP directly which may or may not be an issue.

With a non-PPPoE connection you could bridge the WAN and the internal interface in order to use the public IPs directly on the servers.

Steve

It's NodeBB, https://nodebb.org

@ivor said in Roadmap? Any idea how much longer till I need AES-NI?:

Likely not this year, still a lot of work is to be done.

Thanks.... that's exactly the answer I was looking for. For me it's no rush as I'm in no hurry to lay out more $$ for another mini PC. Given there is a period of support for 2.4.x after 2.5 comes out, it looks like I'm good till about the 3rd-4th Quarter of 2019 before I'm totally unsupported.

This thread is quite old but others who are searching for it may find it helpful.
On Chrome, you can fix this Error by adding -disable-prompt-on-repost

Follow these steps

Open application's folder in Program files in C Drive Right-click and open properties Click on the target field and add -disable-prompt-on-repost to the end of the directory Try again to check if Chrome is still showing the error

Image for reference
Confirm Form Resubmission

Hope this Helps :D

Source: Confirm Form Resubmission

Yes, it is safe.