Multi-WAN support with same gateway on multiple interfaces ***{NOW $650}***

eri-- · Jul 22, 2008, 3:27 PM

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.

hhh3h · Jul 22, 2008, 5:43 PM

Thanks anyway ermal.

Any other developers out there?

Any other pledges?

swinokur · Oct 17, 2008, 9:51 PM

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.

StankCheeze · Oct 17, 2008, 11:17 PM

I'll pledge whatever I can sell my 3 linksys wired routers for, probably $50.

GoldServe · Oct 18, 2008, 1:03 AM

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!

swinokur · Oct 21, 2008, 4:25 PM

Can someone change the thread title to be $550? (its more, since goldserve said he would add more to his pledge)

thekod · Oct 23, 2008, 7:52 AM

Would it satisfy you to have a MultiWAN wizard that did the NATing for you? Might be easier to convince someone to do that.

GoldServe · Oct 23, 2008, 9:47 AM

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.

thekod · Oct 23, 2008, 5:49 PM

Probably not, I was trying to wrap my head around why this was difficult…ignore me...

cheesyboofs · Oct 24, 2008, 9:13 AM

My two cents - Why I think this is important.

Many people will say "why go on about multi wan all the time some of us can just about afford 1 ISP link" but some people will have been drawn (myself included) and tried pfsense purley for its multi wan capability when other firewall distributions don't or won't even entertain the idea.
It is one of its biggest draws and the stronger a feature it is the bigger the draw. The bigger the draw the larger the client base and hopefully more revenue for the developers.

aspeer · Oct 28, 2008, 3:33 AM

I am definately willing to see $100 towards this project, I've used clark connect forever but am tired of paying 79.99 a year for multiwan capability with crappy everything else. Its DHCP fails every 4 days… as it is now i use pfsens as a dhcp server and only the cc box for multiwan. Please someone persue this bounty, i might even go 150 if its extremely easy to implementand money can sway your decision....

xerovis · Nov 20, 2008, 7:00 AM

What I would like to see is the option to make multi WAN idiot proof. I know some people might not think this is a good idea but usability is important.

It would be nice to see a GUI that enables you to:
1. select the two interfaces you would like to do multi WAN on
a. Load Balancing or Failover
2. Enter speed and transfer per month

Then Multi WAN is working. Obviously it may be a little more indepth than this, but I am sure you understand where I am going with this.

GruensFroeschli · Nov 20, 2008, 8:35 AM

@xerovis:

It would be nice to see a GUI that enables you to:
1. select the two interfaces you would like to do multi WAN on
a. Load Balancing or Failover
2. Enter speed and transfer per month

1: You can already do.
2: Has nothing to do with the loadbalancer. This is something for the trafficshaper. But afaik this is already done in 2.0.

The Swordsman · Feb 25, 2009, 9:46 PM

I was hoping for some more implementation on this bounty. Its been quite a while since the last post. I have $50 that I could contribute to make this happen. Is this just not a high priority for anyone? Just curios if others are still interested? Even if you only can give $20, if we have enough people giving $10 or $20, someone will take it….. I hope.

MOD: Please change the thread to be $600

thekod · Feb 25, 2009, 10:47 PM

I'll throw in another 50, but what everybody needs to understand is that implementing this completely takes more than just a gui. Its a royal pain in the ass of kernel programmimg…......

Guest · Feb 26, 2009, 2:42 AM

This original bounty is extremely old and is a candidate for removal. If the original bounty posters are still interested, then this bounty can stay active, but it will require someone willing to take this bounty up. If you want this bounty to stay active, contact the original bounty posters and ask them to say so in this thread.

cmb · Feb 27, 2009, 11:18 PM

The reason this is still sitting here is because it's very difficult and requires heavy kernel modifications to software that we don't develop or maintain. At the typical rates that kernel developers command, this is a several thousand dollar project at a minimum, possibly into 5 figures, if we could even find someone willing and able to take it on. Of our existing developers, they either don't have the expertise, or don't have the time even if the money was there.

I'd love to see this happen, but the reality is we'd need at least 10 times what has been offered here to interest anyone capable of doing this kind of work.