Does PFSense support NATTING and ROUTING at the same time?

Re: 2 networks on the LAN interface, vlan, trunk?

Paul M wrote:
> Ugo Bellavance wrote:
>> VLAN 101 contains ports that are connected directly to the internet
>> (PfSense WAN port, internet port (it is in colocation), other servers
>> that would be connected directly to the internet (not behind PfSense).
>>
>> VLAN 102 contains ports that are connected to devices in the Subnet1,
>> let's say 10.10.10.0/24.
>>
>> VLAN 103 contains ports that are connected to devices in the Subnet2,
>> let's say 192.168.10.0/24.
> 
> this seems OK, I think, once you've created vlans you assign the wan and
> lan ports appropriately, then make vlan103 be say OPT1 (and rename it to
> LAN2?)

Hmmm, can you explain a bit further?  There is only 2 NIC in this server.

>> However, subnet2 is completely isolated.  It cannot talk to anyone, nor
>> to the fw, nor the subnet1, nor the internet.
> 
> if you manually add static routes to hosts on vlan103, does it work?
> what are you seeing in the arp tables on the hosts?

On the hosts or on the pfsense?  How would I do that?

Thanks a lot for your answer,

Ugo

Re: Does PFSense support NATTING and ROUTING at the same time?

Use advanced outbound NAT.

On 10/1/07, Bassam A. Al-Khaffaf <bassam@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Folk,
>
>    I am using PFSense to provide Internet access to a housing area. Where
> subscribers need to dial a PPPoE connection to PFSense in order to access
> the Internet. The PPPoE server on PFSense is already configured to use
> Radius authentication and to provide framed IP to all PPPoE clients. I have
> done this part successfully.
>
>
>
> However, my issue is that how to route out the Public IP assigned PPPoE
> users while to NAT the Private ones.
>
>
>
> Your help is much more appreciated
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bassam

Re: IPsec VPN Question.

Matt Hohman wrote:
> We currently use pfSense at our main location and we now have a new 
> site linked via a point to point 3mbit connection. I'm wondering if we 
> would be able to squeeze any more bandwidth out of that connection by 
> putting pfsense box on the other side and using ipsec with 
> compression. Does the compression really gain you anything?

I'm not sure offhand if we even enable compression, maybe someone else 
can confirm or deny that, but most likely the answer is it'll be 
marginally slower with IPsec regardless of compression settings. Plus it 
potentially introduces even more problems with the lower effective MSS.

I wouldn't recommend it.

Captive Portal Design documents

Loosing connectivity

Dual WLAN no load balancing (different GW)

Re: Captive Portal Design documents

Re: Captive Portal Design documents

On 10/1/07, cassio lima <lluner@...> wrote:
> better solution monowall

Please stop trolling.

Scott

Re: Dual WLAN no load balancing (different GW)