@marcosm

I also noticed the /aliases end point does not return the ID of the alias. This is needed to manage aliases via the other aliases end points. Hopefully this will be fixed also.

@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. 😁

It's not mentioned on that page - after MIM is enabled, the local system is automatically added to the controller for management. You only need to register additional instances/devices.

@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,

@stephenw10
If you need more info, fire away as I'm in prep mode for next week for a workshop with new pfsense features and stuff, so anything I can get to you to get fixed for 24.11 release or afterwards would nice as I can show it and tell people "it's getting fixed as we speak" :)

@stephenw10 said in [Howto] reset MIM:

It shouldn't actually cause any issues though.

It was constantly using an existing WireGuard-tunnel for this, I didn't like that. 😉

Spoiler

Screenshot 2024-11-12 145236.png