you can only monitor with this package, If you want to limit your users within the cap, I don't think there's a package for that!

@kejianshi: Sounds good.  I'd say its perfect then if thats just the way you want it. Bigger certs certainly should never make your VPN less secure unless its a compromised algorithm.. meh makes me feel safer having bigger numbers…perhaps I'm compensating for something else! :) Thanks for taking the time to reply.

So, under the firewall rules, lan, I created a rule for every single static IP mapped address, and selected which gateway I wanted it to exit through. So, if I wanted 192.168.1.2 to exit via my isp, I selected that. Seems to be working perfectly. Specific devices are going through my vpn provider, the rest are going through my ISP. You can make your life a little easier by creating an alias (Firewall->Aliases). Make 1 rule sending that alias to the VPN. Put all the devices that should go over the VPN into that alias. Less "almost duplicated" rules to manage, and 1 easy place to add/remove devices from the list. You could also allocate static mapping IPs for the "over the VPN" devices to a nice "power of 2" range of your subnet - e.g. 192.168.1.16 to 31 - that means they are all in network 192.168.1.16/28 - then you can make your alias just be the network 192.168.1.16/28. Static mapping something inside that network will result in its traffic going over the VPN. If you are comfortable with thinking/using variable-sized network masks then that can be easy.

Its not really that port mirroring is "bad". Its bad if it can be remotely switched on via a back door and pointed towards destination of choice. No technology is bad unless used in a bad way. Well…  I guess its also bad if its use to seamlessly funnel every single bit and byte of data running across a major trunk in two directions simultaneously.  One towards destination that serves the consumer and the other for real-time ingestion at line speed and later analysis elsewhere and calling it a feature of the unit.  I don't think privacy is a privilege, but rather a right.  No one has to be licensed for privacy.  Its not something that you should have or not have at the digression of the government or anyone else.

Yes a drawing would be very helpful But couple of things - if your using as just a "router", then your not using any firewall rules?  And your not doing nat? How do the devices in your live network route to the lab network, I would assume they are using a default gateway other than your wan interface of your pfsense VM.  So you would either have to use host routing on the devices in that network - or their gateway would have to know to talk to the wan interface of your pfsense vm to talk to the lab network, etc. where you say you can not ping from the lan (lab network I assume) interface – lets call live network address A, and lab network B -- how does your firewall (gateway of live network I assume) know how to get to network B?  It would need a route to this network, if not its just going to go out your ISP connection which I would assume is its default route.  So it would be unlikely you ping your live network firewall from lab network.

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