Multi-WAN support with same gateway on multiple interfaces ***{NOW $650}***
-
@ermal:
Well, ;D, you remind me of why so many people talk as they please and few of them do the real work.
I'm sorry..
That is a really cool idea and would put pfsense above all others! Unfortunately, it is going to take some massive rewrite and someone's commitment to accomplish that. I will put down $200 out of my own pockets to see work being down in that direction.
Thank you
I would be inclined to support a project with this functionality as well, but I only learned about pfsense and feature bounties today. I am wondering what the trackrecord is and/or likelihood that something would actually be developed.
-
The bounty system proved successful for the traffic shaper. Now it is vastly improved and functional.
-
I would be inclined to support a project with this functionality as well, but I only learned about pfsense and feature bounties today. I am wondering what the trackrecord is and/or likelihood that something would actually be developed.
For this feature, I don't know how likely it is to be completed. This is a more difficult one to implement than ones that have been completed in the past.
The only problem to date with bounties is people pledging support and never paying. The last one I did was even worse - I bought the hardware the company was using so I could implement the desired functionality with the promise it would be reimbursed, did the work as agreed upon and it was successfully completed. They refuse to pay, so I'm out $450 USD out of my pocket plus all the time spent. Losing time is one thing, losing that much money out of my pocket is another entirely… Lesson learned, I'll never buy any hardware under the promise of reimbursement again.
The bounty system has proven to be a great way to get functionality implemented for the end users. The developers have gotten screwed on multiple occasions, to varying degrees, but no end user has ever gotten less than promised.
-
@cmb:
I would be inclined to support a project with this functionality as well, but I only learned about pfsense and feature bounties today. I am wondering what the trackrecord is and/or likelihood that something would actually be developed.
For this feature, I don't know how likely it is to be completed. This is a more difficult one to implement than ones that have been completed in the past.
Thank you for replying. It seems that there are many many of threads on I see on the internet about "why doesn't IPCop support multi-WANs", and "why is it so hard to get multi-WANs working in pfSense". Therefore, I would assume that well-designed, intrinsic functionality to support a multi-WAN environment should be a high priority.
But nevertheless, are you saying that I should not pledge any money on this project because it is not likely to be completed? I would really appreciate a realistic projection.
Thank you
-
Well nobody stops you from pledging!
The problem is that the offer should be serious and so should be your commitment when the bounty is finished.I do not think that multi-WAN in pfSense is difficult, though in 1.3 the configuration has changed somewhat.
The first thing before pledging moeny is stating what are your needs and after that what is your pledge.
Ermal
-
@ermal:
Well nobody stops you from pledging!
The problem is that the offer should be serious and so should be your commitment when the bounty is finished.I'm serious about getting something done. I'm not going to pledge money for this idea if cmb is saying it's not going to be doable…....
-
Actually it is quite doable and i am one of the possible implementers of it. Just need to be convinced to do it…..
-
That's good news. I'm very serious about committing $200 of my personal money for this. I use pfsense for home use only as I am a geek =D I paid a little for the traffic shapper changes even though I do not use it but I hear it was well worth it.
Cheers!
-
@ermal:
Actually it is quite doable and i am one of the possible implementers of it. Just need to be convinced to do it…..
Great.. How much total pledge money will convince you?
-
How much total pledge money will convince you?
You make your offer and i will give my answer.
-
At this point, I am considering pledging an additional 200 USD on top of GoldServe's 200.
However, I would feel more comfortable with a bit more convincing that a feature such as this is even feasible to do in the first place. On page 1, you and cmb were discussing possibilities on how to tackle this initiative, and it didn't appear to have much resolution.
I appreciate your response.
-
Sorry not interested with this pledge since it is a major undertaking, really.
For the matter this is doable with some hacks directly to the kernel not fancy ones but it is doable.
-
Thanks anyway ermal.
Any other developers out there?
Any other pledges?
-
There hasn't been much activity on this thread for a while, but I would be willing to pledge $100 to have this sort of support added to pfSense.
-
I'll pledge whatever I can sell my 3 linksys wired routers for, probably $50.
-
I mean this would a great thing to add to pfsense considering commercial or SOHO routers that do multi-wan don't have this limitation. I'm willing to add more ontop of my pledge if someone is capable of adding this!
-
Can someone change the thread title to be $550? (its more, since goldserve said he would add more to his pledge)
-
Would it satisfy you to have a MultiWAN wizard that did the NATing for you? Might be easier to convince someone to do that.
-
I think you are mistaken. Right now, if I have 3 cable modems with the same provider, I will be given three IPs that are probably going to have the same gateway IP address assigned to each interface. The only way to overcome that right now is to put a NAT router infront of each pfsense interface so that it sees three internal ip addresses with different gateways. The bounty is to remove that limitation and modify the inner workings of the kernel to route traffic out of different interfaces with different mac address as opposed to routing by GW only.
I think i'm correct in my understanding. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
Thanks.
-
Probably not, I was trying to wrap my head around why this was difficult…ignore me...