Search
Results (254)
- Bug #12632 (Resolved): Changing an interface ... teway if one already exists for the interface
- First encoutnered two months ago. Assumed I h ... is a /30 - /22 /23/24 etc do not do this.
- Regression #12549 (New): Per-user Mobile IPsec settings are not applied to connecting mobile clients
- Not sure when this regressed but it looks lik ... erging it yet until more testing can be done.
- Bug #12536 (Resolved): Setting a default gate ... ve the default gateway from the routing table
- selecting Default gateway as NONE should re ... interface or using the command route delete 0.0.0.0/0 [gateway ip] are the only way to remove it ... ove the default route from the routing table.
- Bug #12446 (Duplicate): IPsec dashboard widget description
- Hello, looks like description of the tunnel ... onsider the following: IPsec Phase 1 (WAN - 0.0.0.0) description => Phase1 First IPsec Phase 2 ... 92.168.4.0/24 | 10.0.5.0/24 | | | (WAN) | (0.0.0.0) | | I think it should be: |_.Source|_.Destination|_.Description| | (WAN) | (0.0.0.0) | Phase1 | | 192.168.5.0/24 | 10.0.5.0/24 ... f it's correct instead when IPsec will be up.
- Feature #12397 (Resolved): Distinguish betwee ... d route-based entries on IPsec status SPD tab
- The IPsec Status SPD tab at @status_ipsec_spd ... s an entry from a VTI mode tunnel: <pre> 0.0.0.0/0[any] 0.0.0.0/0[any] any out ipsec esp/t ... ng to P2 edit but that may clutter the page
- Feature #12325 (Resolved): IPv6 support for base system SNMP service
- IPv6 transport for bsnmpd works on the latest ... ry: <pre> begemotSnmpdTransInetStatus.2.16.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.161.1 = 4 </pre> result: <pre> ... > see https://reviews.freebsd.org/D16654
- Bug #12270 (Not a Bug): Unidirectional connectivity with DHCP-assigned interface
- [I did discuss this in the forum, and I am aw ... .101. Checks. netstat -rn among others says 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1. Checks. However, ping 192.168 ... achine Changing interface hardware (NIC)
- Bug #12262 (Resolved): IPsec phase 1 entry with ``0.0.0.0`` as its remote gateway does not receive correct automatic firewall rules
- When using @0.0.0.0@ as the remote gateway IP for IPsec, the aut ... vneta0 192.0.2.1 ) proto udp from (self) to 0.0.0.0 port = 500 tracker 1000106373 keep state lab ... ply-to ( mvneta0 192.0.2.1 ) proto udp from 0.0.0.0 to (self) port = 500 tracker 1000106374 keep ... vneta0 192.0.2.1 ) proto udp from (self) to 0.0.0.0 port = 4500 tracker 1000106375 keep state la ... ply-to ( mvneta0 192.0.2.1 ) proto udp from 0.0.0.0 to (self) port = 4500 tracker 1000106376 kee ... vneta0 192.0.2.1 ) proto esp from (self) to 0.0.0.0 tracker 1000106377 keep state label "IPsec: ... ply-to ( mvneta0 192.0.2.1 ) proto esp from 0.0.0.0 to (self) tracker 1000106378 keep state labe ... proto" </pre> With the rules specifying @0.0.0.0@, traffic does not match and gets dropped.
- Regression #12233 (Resolved): VIP network addresses are not expanded on Port Forward rules
- On 2.4.5p1, it was possible to select an auto ... Type Other | Address type Network | Address 10.0.0.0/29@ # Create a NAT Port Forward rule On version 21.05.1 @Destination drop-down list only shows 10.0.0.0@ On version 2.4.5p1 @Destination drop-down list shows 10.0.0.0 through 10.0.0.7 and "Subnet: 10.0.0.0/29"@
- Bug #12155 (Resolved): Tunnels with conflicti ... n lead to multiple identical Child SA entries
- Testing in 21.05 and 21.09 it's possible to c ... tart remote_ts = 10.66.10.2,0.0.0.0/0 local_ts = 10.66.10.1,0.0.0.0/0 reqid = 1 ... 1.0/24|/0 === 192.168.126.0/24|/0 </pre>