This should be fixed in the next version.

+1 on wanting a Timeline and Costs, we currently have a few Customers that remain on a previous version to retain the ability to controll 3 Firewalls

@marcosm Thanks! Will look forward to the update

By default it only manages itself but it can also become a controller which manages many clients. As for the referenced features, I can say that there are many features in our internal builds and we'll release more info when appropriate :)

I'll look into this for you. I can renew certificates that I created in the new GUI, but none of the others. It does seem that it uses the CA endpoint to renew regular certificates though. So you should be able to use system/certauth/{refid}/renew until it's fixed.

@philippe-richard use the new UI (by default it listens on port 8443), which will let you see the API calls, similar to the screenshot of the web devtools above, where the id is derived from a unique value of the rule entry. This is unlike the PHP pages which do not have an API and assume one admin accessing the page at any time, so submitting from *_edit.php?id=7 could end up hitting the wrong entry if two people are modifying the rules at the same time.

Actually, docs are hosted here. This is now linked in the readme.

It's normally not recommended but it should be fine for a quick edit. IIRC it's under the system tree - it will be obvious since it's a long base64 string.

Hmm, I'll dig further...

I got hit with this foot gun today also. Might be a long day but the registration process confused me. So, no need to activate the controller "to itself" ?

You're right, that will work on the upcoming pfSense+ 25.07 release.

@pfGeorge good, thank you

There isn't any specific handling in MIM for HA setups yet. It's something we expect to have though. It's exactly the sort of thing I'd want to see there.

@keyser Kind of strange that Netgate keeps the cards so close on this product… I would think the point of MIM is to attract more customers to pfSense (and keep current customers aboard that might be looking for alternatives because of the “missing” MIM). Why not just answer the 4 questions so we all know what to expect and can plan accordingly? It’s hardly “subject to changes” or “undiscovered territory” type of questions. They must have debated those points LOTS of times before the product became an actual reality like its starting to become now.

Ah, that would do it! Explains why I couldn't replicate it.

@stephenw10 said in request handler failed: Great feedback. Thanks! Yeah I have some configs with deliberately huge aliases and it gets....interesting! Pleasure. I think the biggest problem that results in no aliases/rules shown will be the empty descriptions that are/were allowed in the past, many configs will spout them,