$25 - Pure server mode for a high-power DHCP server only/etc



  • Love the product.  Love it.

    I've used it for a pure DHCP server because of the way it handles VLANs well, I put it on a trunk port (under VMWare) and define the VLANs and set up different DHCP scopes on each one but this is all I use it for in this case, it does such a good job and it's easy to manage that it's better than many of the other only-dhcp servers out there.

    In this "server" mode there wouldn't be a WAN interface and it would just have a LAN interface plus the VLANs that are defined and you could run whatever services you want to have LAN-facing - DHCP, NTP, whatever.  Basically a stripped-down version of pfSense that takes advantage of the excellent gui and build to apply services only and carves out the firewall aspect.

    Don't know if it's something that can realistically be on radar, I've found several other folks using this as a pure DHCP server because it works so well and is easy to manage.  Not a king's ransom of bounty, but it's out of pocket because I think it's would be a cool modification.

    thanks guys!



  • @DougSF:

    Love the product.  Love it.

    I've used it for a pure DHCP server because of the way it handles VLANs well, I put it on a trunk port (under VMWare) and define the VLANs and set up different DHCP scopes on each one but this is all I use it for in this case, it does such a good job and it's easy to manage that it's better than many of the other only-dhcp servers out there.

    In this "server" mode there wouldn't be a WAN interface and it would just have a LAN interface plus the VLANs that are defined and you could run whatever services you want to have LAN-facing - DHCP, NTP, whatever.  Basically a stripped-down version of pfSense that takes advantage of the excellent gui and build to apply services only and carves out the firewall aspect.

    Don't know if it's something that can realistically be on radar, I've found several other folks using this as a pure DHCP server because it works so well and is easy to manage.  Not a king's ransom of bounty, but it's out of pocket because I think it's would be a cool modification.

    thanks guys!

    Actually, there may be something that may be on radar that you wouldn't notice. just my opinion Doug. But i'm not actually sure about it, exactly.



  • 2.0 added the ability to have a single interface specifically for appliance type deployments like this. Or in the case of what you're doing, the same concept but with multiple interfaces/VLANs.

    Not sure what you're asking for. You're already doing what you want to do, and lots of others do similar things and have been for years. An interface is just an interface, you can make WAN whatever you want it to be, and rename it to something more appropriate if it's not actually a WAN. What's missing?



  • @cmb:

    2.0 added the ability to have a single interface specifically for appliance type deployments like this. Or in the case of what you're doing, the same concept but with multiple interfaces/VLANs.

    Not sure what you're asking for. You're already doing what you want to do, and lots of others do similar things and have been for years. An interface is just an interface, you can make WAN whatever you want it to be, and rename it to something more appropriate if it's not actually a WAN. What's missing?

    cmb, that was a brilliant idea you had for this guy. Well done!



  • @cmb:

    2.0 added the ability to have a single interface specifically for appliance type deployments like this. Or in the case of what you're doing, the same concept but with multiple interfaces/VLANs.

    Not sure what you're asking for. You're already doing what you want to do, and lots of others do similar things and have been for years. An interface is just an interface, you can make WAN whatever you want it to be, and rename it to something more appropriate if it's not actually a WAN. What's missing?

    Functionally, nothing is missing, it's a product I already crazy happy about and evangelize at every opportunity.  I think it's more of a clean-up and getting rid of the WAN port and any references to it and simply having a single LAN eth0 type interface that you layer in all your vlans to be able to set up individual DHCP scopes per-vlan.  Having the ability to clear out the unnecessary stuff and have the single interface and include all the existing rich vlan and DHCP support.

    It's a small whine for an already fantastic product, one of those few products I love to just spin up with an play with different options just for fun rather than it feeling like work.

    ~Doug



  • It feels like you are making a request for a feature that already exists, but you are too lazy to configure it to your liking.

    And 25$ wont get you so far anyway…


  • Netgate Administrator

    I can see why it would be nice to have this. The current 'appliance mode' is triggered when you only configure a single interface which is fine for almost all appliance type applications. However as soon as you start having to talk to several VLANs you have added more interfaces in which case pfSense reverts to firewall/router mode complete with a load of stuff you don't want.

    However I agree that this is very unlikely to see any action unless you were willing to pay for the development entirely. The functionality already exists, it will be a very low priority change amongst hundreds for much higher priority changes.  ;)

    Steve



  • If I remember correct you can disable firewall and NAT capabilities from "system –> advanced" so these parts will not be loaded if you do not need it.

    And in system --> UserManager you can create a user which has only access to the DHCP console and not the other options. So you can narrow down the existing product to only do what you need: DHCP.


Log in to reply