• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

Is there a way to hide unfiltered interfaces from the firewall rules area?

webGUI
3
4
2.3k
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • J
    jptech
    last edited by Apr 17, 2012, 2:17 PM

    I use this method of bridging wireless networks to wired networks:

    http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=20917.0

    Here are screenshots of the relative portion of my setup:

    http://imgur.com/a/gP22S

    Is there a way I can hide OPT1 and WIFI from the firewall rules page?  Adding rules won't have any effect, so there's no reason to have them on that page, right?

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • C
      cmb
      last edited by Apr 23, 2012, 1:20 AM

      They're still filtered, just not if the traffic is destined to the bridge. For instance if you have an IP assigned on one of the NICs, any traffic destined to that IP will be filtered. No way to hide them.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • E
        Efonnes
        last edited by Apr 23, 2012, 4:53 AM

        An alternative that was mentioned by Ermal would be to allow adding unassigned interfaces as bridge members.  Since unassigned interfaces don't show up in rules or all the other places, this would effectively hide them.  It would also make configuring easier for that type of bridge configuration than it currently is.  I posted a ticket for it recently so it doesn't get forgotten: http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/2386

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • J
          jptech
          last edited by Apr 25, 2012, 11:05 PM

          Thanks for the replies.  Now that I understand things a bit better I agree that hiding those tabs for assigned interfaces would not be a good idea.  I commented on Efonne's ticket and added screenshots for a sample configuration that would benefit from the improvement.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          4 out of 4
          • First post
            4/4
            Last post
          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.