you can get the ip if some one use P2P. But you need to Enable UPnP Service on Pfsense. Go to Service and then Enable UPnP. And then if you want to check anyone using P2P or not then go to status and click UPnP. You will see details about these " Port  Protocol  Internal IP  Description ". I hope you can catch those people who use P2P.

SOLVED IT! Note to self– don't let other people login to my pfSense box!!! This install is in a fraternity house, and following the instructions from XBox support, one idiot unplugged my pfSense box.  After I finished yelling at him for being such an idiot for an hour or so, I logged on and checked things out. Oddly, I noticed the ping had stopped.  I ask the other 2 guys who have login rights about it, and I figured it out. One of them entered "ping" under the "Command" option in diagnostics instead of using the Ping function.  Since the command didn't return any data on that screen, he simply closed his browser and logged on again. Ergo, the ping command kept running in the background, doing exactly what it was told to do. Additional note to self -- next time, login via a shell and run top before running to the forums. Thanks for your feedback. -E.Drav-

Hi, tried both, bandwidthd shows bandwidth history, liked more diag_new_states visual integration but it only shows data transferred (Packets/Bytes) and not bandwidth usage, is this correct?

Thanks for the reply.  Unfortunately I still have not been able to get this to work.  Let me give a little more detail. Pfsense - LAN = 172.16.0.1 WAN = unique public IP Endian proxy - LAN = 172.16.0.2 WAN = unique public IP The proxy works on port 8080.  I tried passing all port 80 and 443 traffic to the proxy IP with destination port of 8080 (on the LAN subnet).  That did not work.  I even tried adding a third rule after the port 80 and 443 redirect rules giving all other ports access.  All I am trying to do is redirect Web traffic to port 8080 on my proxy machine.  Sounds easy but I am missing something.  Any ideas?  Thanks.

Recheck gateway settings + from a similar problem with subaru.com it was a broken wireless AP.

Syslog uses UDP 514. I've tried it on pfSense 1.2.1 and it has worked fine for me. I thought it was funner to write a basic Syslog server in PHP and make it run as a windows service rather than learning a pre-made syslog server. I kind of wonder if some of the SysLog servers have a hard time with the messages? Since they don't follow the spec as mentioned here. http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,12143.0.html

If any customers on the Centipede site would like to help test the autobackup, open a ticket and I will send you a username and password. It's working nicely now, we're putting the finishing touches on a few areas but it works well.

Experienced same problem today. Hopefully everything is still working. I kindly request any help from experienced users.

for first enable dhcp on lan  interfaces. this connect this interface on switch. take a win dows pc and  configure its  lan interface for obtein ip from dhcp. create new connection ( start–connetc to--- create  new connection -- internet connection--manual connection-- dsl connection (you can watch now the pppoe connection... : ))--- isp connection name 'test' --- username  'test'---password 'test' ---done.  now you have a client who ask for pppoe connection. after this you have client and server  for configure the server is easy: insert subnet example 10.0.0.1 for pppoe client an ip of pppoe  server example 10.0.1.1 click on tab local autentication and add client 'test' 'test'. now all pc who receive dhcp from pfsense  ( wireless + cable) can navigate after lunch pppoe connection... undestend?

Probably because most people will not be buying the (relatively expensive) industrial grade cards but the consumer ones.

Hi It seems because the config had regenerated while upgrading to 1.2.1 then some "glitch" went away. Yeah, it happens to me several times and I don't care as far as my box is running fine  ;D Cheers, @cwoelkers: Don't know why but after an upgrade to 1.2.1-RC1 everything just started working. Currently I would say that the problem has been solved.

Hello Indeed. Try first, then think ;D Cheers,

When i look at your post-history you kind of wrote this "help me please" without giving infos already twice. So i write it here for you again: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,7001.0.html **If you are looking for help on the forum because you have a problem: provide as much information as possible. (log-outputs, screenshots of config/rules, etc.) Often a Diagram (ASCII ART ?) can help more than pages of descriptions how your network is set up. Before you ask on the Forum: USE THE SEARCH-FUNCTION OF THE FORUM!**

Send an email to wikiadmin@pfsense.org requesting an account. CC coreteam@pfsense.org as well, thanks.

What do you mean by no filtering active on the bridge? What i want to be sure of is that the bridge is forwarding packets to the recipients. In a setup like this it is most likely that some of the devices might not have completed the multicast registration properly. Is this traffic passing across tcp/udp/igmp?!

Well, VLAN'ing is essentially tagging all packets with VLAN information at the concentrator (in this case pfSense). So, it can reduce compatibility, especially with "dumb" network devices like PDAs, printers, legacy OSes, older routers/switches, certain content filters which act as a bridge, etc. It also adds a touch of complexity to the network as a whole, so if you're novice at networking you might want to think consider a few different scenarios. For instance, if you already have switching that will do layer 3, that would be preferable in terms of simplicity. Then the switch would provide routes to each network and to pfSense, and the pfSense would just have to worry about firewalling. You'll get a lot more throughput switch to switch than through pfSense… unless you threw some monster hardware at it, that is. pfSense uses the PF firewall from OpenBSD, which is really anything but lightweight. It has a lot of sweet features, but they come at the cost of relatively high overhead compared to other packet filters.

Thank You for your help. Fred