The squidGuard for 2.0 not ready. Now/near time i work with him.

Ok there wasnt any differences between before and after for the config.

I managed to catch the start up error by hitting pause on my keyboard, the errors as I guessed related to the start up scripts for squid not being able to find squid and/or its config files.

What is interesting is, if I reboot a 2nd time after doing a snapshot upgrade, pfsense fixes itself by removing and reinstalling both packages (squid+lightsquid) as seen on the boot up screen and then everything automagically works again!

Ill test again tomorrow the config diffs to be 100% sure.

Thanks

Slam

I get similar errors on my box but if I delete the pkg from the CLI and then pkg_add -r nmap, it seems to work.

So it must need recompiled again.

Captive portal is only supported with RADIUS or local users.

Thanks, if you need any particular test let me know, I'll be glad to help.

An area specifically for moving around interfaces between bridges while reassigning interfaces would probably be an easy way to handle it.  Maybe a link or button on the assign interfaces page to go to a variant page in the same php file with these extra options?  It could be something below the regular options on the assign interfaces page that appears when you click the link or button and has lists where you can add or remove interfaces from each of the bridges.

Its working fine here too, tested on firefox 3.6.3 and safari 4.0.5, perhaps you have a firefox addon thats messing with the page?

Slam

Default gateway is…well, exactly what a default gateway is. If you don't use policy routing, it's the route your traffic takes. You need policy routing for multi-WAN, not multiple default gateways.

It isn't.

Each run of the builder produces one NanoBSD image, either 512M, 1G, 2G or 4G. The next run of the builder will produce the next size, and so on. It can take a while (sometimes days depending on the state of the builder) for all four sizes to show up.

With the latest snapshot, its working fine and also those state-mismatch's have gone.

Thanks

Slam

also note threads like this:
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,24631.0.html

where the issue was fixed. When there was sufficient information, it was quickly resolved. When the entire problem report consists of:

@cdx304:

I have been having this problem after i started using 2.0 .I upload a small file under 10mb and pfsense crashes.

there is nothing we can do. If it were that simple, we would have seen it, we're currently running or supporting 2.0 in production on around 100 systems.

If you are one of the small few who can reliably replicate panics, please provide a back trace the next time you see it. We want to fix any problems that are out there, and generally do so quickly, but can't without the needed debug information.

Checking the system log after you boot should show something as well (even if no driver attaches), but if it doesn't show up for assignment it probably isn't supported.

Nothing to worry is innocuous error, i see if it can be masked out totally.

@rcfa:

a) There are a couple of things that make pfSense only workable for my setup starting with the 2.0 version. Does it make sense to buy a copy of the pfSense book, or should I wait until there's an updated version out for 2.0, given that I'll never use 1.x. Or in other words: how far reaching are the differences?

At first appearance pf2.0 looks very much the same, but you soon find some pretty huge differences. If you're not doing anything amazingly clever with pfSense, ie just having a basic 2 NIC LAN <-> WAN firewall router, the differences are minimal. Once you begin to use things like the load balancer, QoS (Traffic shaping), or VPN options of pfSense 2.0, they have practically been totally re-engineered from scratch so they're very different.

@rcfa:

b) When installing packages, the list of packages shows for which platform a package is meant. So if it e.g. says platform 1.2.3 does that mean for 1.2.3 ONLY or 1.2.3 OR HIGHER, INCLUDING 2.0 ? Or does it mean: TESTED on 1.2.3, anything else is trial and error, you may get lucky or it may as well mess up your setup? In other words, how safe is it to install packages that are not listed as being for the 2.0 platform?

The packages shown in the list are specific to the platform. Currently since pf 2.0 is still in beta, it allows practically all packages to be downloaded regardless of compatibility issues so people can do what they do with betas: test them. Once pf2.0 goes to RC and finally RELEASE, then you can expect the packages to be tailored to what only works with pf2.0. See the sticky for the status of packages.

@rcfa:

c) how stable is the update mechanism? While I understand that you currently don't recommend using pfSense 2.0 for production use, obviously a bunch of people are doing just that, because otherwise you'd not getting any real-world testing done. I can deal with all sorts of hick-ups, but one of the machines I'd install pfSense on would be at a colocation hosting company somewhere a thousand miles away. So as long as updating through the web interface (either manually or through the autoupdater) is considered production quality stable, I'm good. But if updating is still hit or miss or might undergo major, incompatible changes, etc. then I'll clearly have to hold off on using pfSense at that particular location, since I can't just hop into an airplane to go there and fix things…

The updated snapshots for pf2.0 aren't digitally signed as doing that is a pain. This means updating from the web interface doesn't work. If however you SSH into the pf2.0 box and select option 13 to update from the console, you'll get some pretty scary messages saying the image isn't signed, but you have the option to override this and download and update the 'firmware' of pfSense on both nano and full versions.

As you can see from the stickies though pf 2.0 is not for production use, so using it in a colo machine would be unwise. It is beta software still, and there are naturally a few issues with it still. I too am keen to flash my production installations but there are 2 issues stopping me from doing this right now. YMMV with your specific setup - so my advice is test by setting it up in a VM and double-NAT-ing at all your locations before fully committing to it. That said however, the pf team have come on leaps and bounds in the last 3 months and while I certainly don't speak for the dev team, my personal opinion is we won't be waiting very long for 2.0 RC1…

Thanks for the clarification.

http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Is_there_IPv6_support_available

Thank you for your reply.
I know very well that pfSense is based on FreeBSD. I was just supposing that FreeBSD drivers for that card derived from Linux ones. Maybe the right place to ask was a FreeBSD forum and not a pfSense one.
BTW gived that, as you point out, the linux drivers seem not to work i suppose i have to find another wifi card to use as an access point.

Regards,
Francesco

yeah updated this. http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/show/449

latest ones should be ok.