@RDS_Correia: What do you want to predicate?

I REALLY know that these PRE…XXX-images aren't official Updates, nevertheless I'm interested in testing particular improvements as soon, as I can get them. And there are other users too, using these Images. So I think, it's ok to inform in this forum about running into problems with these images. Don't you think so?

I haven't posted to blame Scott, or any of the developers.

Alpha builds were labeled 0.xx
Beta builds are 1.0betaX (for example for beta versions of 1.0)
The files from the link I posted are more or less preview snapshots of the upcoming 1.0beta2.
I can recommend using these as they solve some ftp issues and have several other bugfixes.
Stability in my experience is no issue since around the 0.8x alphas and these were mostly freebsd related.

this thing blows my head off, it seams to me that the module or its configuration is not operational…. because it looks like the NAT part does the "bridging" instead....  I didnt use monowall, but do they have operational bridge function? caz i dont really want to dig in this for now... i just need to get my device to operate the way i need it ... and than do any improovements to the OS

I just wanted to say thanks for the info. I made the changes from auto to LBA and unchecked packet mode and the system works great.

Thanks

@cmb:

Yeah but unless you have a few thousand machines, there's no way you'll ever exceed 100 Mb in that scenario.

or a few large cache files.  ;)

You have a 4801, why not put in a laptop hard drive and run a normal install from that?  I believe that should work. Much faster than any USB 1.1 device too.

Negatif.

Going 'back' to M0n0wall 1.21 (new release) enables this option (with some config.xml pathing).

But, anyway, in this case the ADSL device isn't a router, just a PPPOE bridge between phoneline and WAN network card, so I gave up the 'want to have' idear of having telnet/web access to this device. There isn't mutch to administer anyway.

I have a final choice of putting this modem in Router mode (my ISP doesn't bother) and give pfSense a static/fixed 'internal' IP on his WAN interface (or even use client DHCP for that mather) - this will mean that all firewall rules concerning WAN & outside NAT have to be duplicated in the modem/router - this means access is possible, and very very needed.

To make things short : don't need a gun if there are no rabbits to kill anyway  :D

The basic file structure is very FreeBSDish.  Expect to find files where they should normally live on a FreeBSD server.  For instances, almost all FreeBSD packages install their configuration files to /usr/local/etc so if you're curious about how squid is configured you can look at /usr/local/etc/squid.conf and in there you'll find the cache_dir directive specifying where the squid cache is kept.  You might reconsider using WinSCP (which is primarily used for transfering programs) and instead go with a full ssh client (like putty or SecureCRT) so that you can use very useful shell commands like find.

@tesna:

btw off topic, how do I write the boot disk using linux from command line? I dont have access to a windows PC with floppy drive installed.

Use the dd command:
dd if=/path/to/pfsense/bootdisk/binary of=/dev/fda

fixed in beta1  ;D

Not at this time.

I've tried it couple of times, even after rebooting and still get the same message.

Edit:  Well, after a few more tries, it finally worked.  Thanks.

No basically means it is not supported. However pfSense is more or less a freebsd system so you might get things working if you know what you are doing but there probably is nobody who can help you with that kind of setup. I would go with the small/simple modemrouter in front and use that one as gateway as this saves you from reapplying your changes with each new update or updates breaking your changes.

@sullrich:

Okay, run this from a shell:

/etc/rc.conf_mount_rw
fetch -o /etc/inc/system.inc "http://cvs.pfsense.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/pfSense/etc/inc/system.inc?rev=1.79.2.12;content-type=text%2Fplain;only_with_tag=RELENG_1"

Perfect!
Doing this, now the DNS is ok!!
Great Job!

Thank you!

It doesn't work.

I selected "Bridge with : none", so I used a seperate subnet.
The Lan subnet is 192.168.2.0/24
The WLan subnet is 192.168.3.0/24
All kinds of securities are off.
Firewall rule for WLan is allowed from any to any

XP client can get a correct IP (192.168.3.200), but no connection.

What can be wrong?

Check at interfaces>wan the option "Block private networks" is checked. Your WAN is a private IP range.

Btw, you don't need allow rules on WAN if all connections are opened from clients behind the pfsense to the outside world. you only need to open ports if you want to supply services to the public (you then need nat as well).

Good news  ;D

@sullrich:

Yep, but some cards have been coming out recently that make me want to change my mind (unlimited writes).  But for some reason I just don't trust them yet.

It's better to be safe than end up with dead cards.