Well if you really are losing connection everyday then you'll have to take that up with your cable company.  ;) Setting 'block private networks' on WAN only blocks unsolicited traffic (like any other firewall rule) so it won't block DHCP requests or gateway pings etc. Steve

I select the OpenVPN Manager utility when exporting my client config. OpenVPN Manager gets installed on my PC, and that provides an interface that starts/stops the real OpenVPN processes that need priv. I never need to enter an Admin password to start/stop my client OpenVPN connection.

I use the following template to create folders for each client. $template TmplMsg, "/var/log/%HOSTNAME%/%PROGRAMNAME%.log"

@torontob: Hi everyone, I would like to put pfSense 2.1.5 + Alix2D13 under rigorous testing for 48 hours. Specifically, I would like to test CPU at 80% and throw many tasks at it along with monitor the bandwidth. I would like to prove to someone that it's a really stable system in software + hardware. What are some of the ways I can setup this lab? Thanks, Put a copy of The Interview on a box behind the pFsense and slashdot it.

Hi guys, got this very same problem. But, found out the/a reason - seems to be a bug or smth in the Dashboard Widget for Gateways. Yesterday I set up three different gateway groups (Multi wan), and suddenly I got this CSRF check failed thing. Well, after a while I managed to go directly to another page within the firewall gui, that is not index.php, and that worked. So, from there I went straight to System - Routing - Groups and deleted the gateway groups I made, and voila! Back to normal. Don't know if your problem got the same reason behind… but maybe?

@elementalwindx: I noticed the amount of bandwidth being used is not equal on the two interfaces. Any idea why that could be? I suspect because you are seeing all the incoming WAN traffic which get put onto the bridge interface but not the phonebridge. My normal reaction to creating a bridge would be to assign the bridge interface to WAN as Derelict suggests, that's what I would do on an internal interface. However because it's WAN I'm tempted to say leave it as you have it. If you assign the bridge as WAN it will never go down which could cause problems with linkup events etc. I'm pretty sure Chris posted something about this recently but I can't find it now. Edit: Here you go. In fact this whole thread is relevant here: https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=84447.msg464102#msg464102 Steve

Ok thank you so much so our replay :) . I think that it's more simple change device and pick one compatible with pfsense The thread for me it resolved Best Giovanni

Just for your reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation

Unplugged all from the network except my laptop directly connected. 1000baseT <full-duplex>The <full- was="" due="" to="" it="" showing:<br="">1000baseT <full-<br>duplex,flowcontrol,rxpause,txpause> then after about 2 sec it shows 1000baseT <full-duplex>in the web gui. Current speed test shows improvement: 130.98/111.78 Time to call support I think since if I connect directly to the modem i get the same.</full-duplex></full-<br></full-></full-duplex>

FreeBSD appears to have an ImageMagick port that you could install with the pkg install command.  All you need to do is find the latest package name and I think set your base update location since FreeBSD 8.3 is deprecated and all associated packages have been moved to a different repository.

Im such a newb just thought about it I forgot to add vlan 400 to the trunk to pfsense. :o

Here is thread about trim, your answer should be in there https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=66622.msg363609#msg363609

I've had no problems at all with DHCP Options. So the answer is "yes" on that question!

Hi, Sorry to up this but it might help some people :) I read somewhere in this forum that description can cause those kind of issues. So I cleared all the descriptions I had (interface, carp, firewall, nat, …) and the error was gone. Hope it helps,

Thx Phil

No problem with that but I don't think I would do it that way. I might assign a /24 to one of your pfSense interfaces and put the cisco WAN ports on that, then in pfSense route, say, 10.1.0.0/16 to one and 10.2.0.0/16 to the other.  Then the first could do whatever it wanted with 10.1.0-254.X and the second whatever it wanted with 10.2.0-254.X.

Been running it for a few days now and that was it! Added the alternate DNS and now it's lightning fast! Thanks again @sowen and @KOM

I don't want it in transparent mode because I want to activate authentication However I want to filter HTTPS too. So I'm already running SQUID3, I'll start to integrate SQUIDGUARD ! Thanks all!