This board supports 2gigs of memory max. Not a big deal, probably just going to end up using it as a router only.  I did see a package in the package section that allows for hosing a website on the server though if I decide to do that.  If I do that though it will be a light traffic website that won't put the processor to much more use. If I need to upgrade the server later to something that supports more memory I will at that time, not to big of a deal.  This is just something to get started with.

You got it

Ok ran tcpdump and it basically just shows that its trying to dial 2.0-RC3][admin@pfsense.localdomain]/var/log(44): tcpdump -i re1_vlan152 tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on re1_vlan152, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes 10:18:15.465148 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x00A74DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:19.467709 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x408A32C3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:21.467160 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x408A32C3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:25.470915 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x408A32C3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:31.469638 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x40A84DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:33.469164 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x40A84DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:37.469156 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x40A84DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:41.472682 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x008032C3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:43.472150 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x008032C3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:47.472177 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x008032C3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:54.474711 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x40A74DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:18:56.474152 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x40A74DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:19:00.474167 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x40A74DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:19:05.476609 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x409A4DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:19:07.476151 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x409A4DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:19:11.476151 PPPoE PADI [Host-Uniq 0x409A4DC3] [Service-Name "*"] 10:19:16.673778 IP 192.168.42.254.1900 > 239.255.255.250.1900: UDP, length 315 10:19:16.773332 IP 192.168.42.254.1900 > 239.255.255.250.1900: UDP, length 306 10:19:16.873230 IP 192.168.42.254.1900 > 239.255.255.250.1900: UDP, length 378 10:19:16.972852 IP 192.168.42.254.1900 > 239.255.255.250.1900: UDP, length 315 Thats all it does  ???

pfSense has various VPN options built in. I'd personally suggest OpenVPN.

You propably read this? you can try this to connect

Yeah, but when I picked the R210 I picked a server without hardware RAID or redundant power supplies as an option.  :)

ehh that was my question? if I can let them work together /edit: I see that I can only config Radius User with the frontend, does anyone could tell me where the data is saved? not in /etc/raddb or /usr/local/etc/raddb/clients /edit: Sorry got it, I'm too new to pfsense ;)

If you have VirtualBox/ESX, you can grab a pre-made builder image from here: http://devwiki.pfsense.org/DevelopersBootStrapAndDevIso You can use that VM to compile things and then move them to the firewall. The usual disclaimers apply, though, anything you install will reduce the overall security/integrity of the system, yadda yadda yadda.

Update to a current snapshot. That is now the default setting if you leave the service name blank, it sends the null. No real need to check that box anymore.

Not only that, but I'd say by disabling certain bits like ACPI and maybe IOAPIC, you might actually reduce performance. BIOS tweaks aren't going to buy you a whole lot, but it is a good practice in general to disable hardware you aren't using.

Thankyou!! yes.. i missed that..

pfSense doesn't have anything to do with Fiber Channel equipment and I'm honestly not sure how you plan to use either for your install.  FC equipment is used to connect servers to storage, not servers to servers for network traffic.

Item #2 may be worth trying on the most current code for the snort package. (Not sure how well it's working on 1.2.3, but on 2.0 it's been working) - Lots of fixes have gone into it over the last few weeks.

@syedadi: the reason my network have two isolated subnet because of the security, so changing the subnetmask is not piratical. You may find it helpful to read http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,39604.0.html It is not a trivial task to provide real isolation between two subnets sharing the same ethernet segment.

Don't bug people via private message for help, it's against our rules (otherwise we'd all be wading through 1000 PMs every day) and definitely not going to encourage answers (I /dev/nulled that and am answering now just because I stumbled across it browsing threads). That isn't currently supported, you can't use md5sig currently (far more to it than a kernel option).

@submicron: If a company already has a significant investment in Juniper gear, they're going to be fairly skeptical of some candidate who wants to strip it all out for another solution.  Its better to learn the gear they have, be proficient with it and then after you've proved yourself to your employer, make appropriate recommendations for how to make improvements.  You'll also find that this approach tends to help you plan your pfSense deployments a little better since you already know how the network is configured and can keep an eye out for the little gotchas that any large network retooling project has. This is a very honest advice. Two thumbs up for this. @Derek: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This one I learned in a hard way. ::)

Because nobody took the effort to convert to mpd5 and/or nobody has requested/supported for it to go to mpd5.