DHCPs assign wrong pools
-
@lsf:
Then i suggest you buy a Cisco or Dlink or Zyxel :)
;D
Or maybe explain yourself better. From reading this, I don't think any of us have the slightest clue what on earth you're trying to accomplish. A network diagram might be helpful.
-
Ok, I thought about how to explain what I’m thinking about … so what I want is this:
4 ports:
WAN (sis0) [Assigned by DHCP]
LAN Local (sis1) [Runs as DHCP server pool 192.168.0.2 - 192.168.0.100, provides internet connectivity from WAN port], NetBIOS ports are Allowed
LAN Authentication (sis2) – Runs DHCP with pool 192.168.1.2 - 192.168.1.100, Connected to the hotspot (captive portal) so all users need to have username/password, NetBIOS ports are filtered
Wireless Authentication (ath0) – Uses, the same DHCP as the “LAN Authentication (Sis2) and assigns the same pool IP addresses, is connected to HotSpot (captive portal) so all users mast use their username/password, NetBIOS ports are filtered
Explanation of the need:
Internet connected to WAN is distributed across all available ports, on LAN Local (sis0) any computer connected is allowed to go on the internet without any restriction, they also can use Windows File Sharing and see each other on the network.Other 2 ports LAN Authentication and Wireless Authentication are connected to the captive portal (HotSpot) and require using their usernames and passwords to get access to the Internet; they don’t have ability to share files because NetBios ports are disabled on that subnet. The reason to have 2 ports for Captive portal because the LAN Authentication (sis2) port will be used for desktop machines and Wireless Authentication (ath0) port will be used for Mobile clients that are in the range.
Yes we can use only one LAN Authentication and connect the AP to that port, but that would be unreasonable not to utilize the hardware possibilities that in my case WRAP box has. So I want to have this scenario. That’s what Dlink has, and the reason I am not using Dlink is because they have only 80mW radios inside, so I want to have my own access points and or HotSpot controllers…
Did I make myself clear now?
-
Okay, thanks for taking the time. This is crystal clear now.
I have bad news, I just tested the Captive Portal on a bridge interface and its not working. This will not work for 1.0 but will work for 1.1 after we rewrite the interface handling code where the Captive Portal can attach to the bridgeX port vs. the real port.
-
yea bad news, but since you are oing to update Captive portal….
I wonder if it can supportt this features (with or withour RADIUS)
-Speed Control that is assosiated to the user account
-Port controll (like we want to black port 80 for username 'JDoe')
-Capture POP3 traffic and send infor so pepople know they need to login -
We are not changing anything for 1.0. It's too late in the release process. Sorry.
-
and when are u going to work on 1.1?
-
Soon, but its not being released for a long time.
1.0 is not even releasedl – its our priority.
-
too bad for me….. :-[
-
My suggestion is to get your "programmers" working on the situation to resolve the issue.
-
well I can do that too since the product is woking alredy, I think…
Can you give me the lisy of the modules that you are using?
-
Modules? Can you be specific?
You can see almost all of them from /usr/local/bin and /usr/local/sbin/ if I am understanding you're request.
-
yea that what I needed… I will try to get everything I need it it will work I will get back and post you the copy....
-
Take a look here?
I think it is possible to have Captive portal for both interfaces but, only if all cables are luged in … for now...OPT3 is the Bridge0
-
Yes, thats is exactly what we have started refactoring in head.
Take a look at:
http://cvstrac.pfsense.com/chngview?cn=9567
-
its hard fo for me to figure how your web configurator works…. never did anything that recice responses from comand prompts...
Is it possible to trick if_bridge to work in cenario that I described earlier? because it seams like if there is a way to make 2 interfaces to work as sort of a switch ... then I get everything I need... I think
-
Yeah, I think what you're on the right track by assign bridge0 as an interface.
Not exactly how we are doing it in head but it should work. What happens now (in 1.1) is that you assign a bridge group interfaces then bring the bridge group in as an interface (instead of bridge0 it would (show bridge group #0) or the name that you specify. Then the bridge group is an interface that can be assigned to captive portal, dhcp, etc.
-
ok, so what will happen if one cables of the bridge interface is removed?
all other interfaces go down? -
As of right now it appears so. The freebsd bridge porter/author is looking into this.. I brought it to his attention yesteday.
-
cool, then I hope that is going to be resolved…
So then I will keep playing woth captice portal now, since im gtting some problems there too...
-
What Captive Portal problems are you running into? Seems to work great for me.
