Use IP alias if you are on 2.0+ If you need redundancy (2xpfsense) use carp. All the other options are poor workarounds created when pfsense did not support true interface alias.
Brgds, Espen 8. mars 2015 16:18 skrev "Tim Hogan" <[email protected]>: > I have seen that page and I don't know about "saying it all". I still > cannot figure out what the advantages and disadvantages are. All I want is > to be able to do a 1:1 NAT with some public IP addresses. These addresses > do not need to be used by the firewall directly. So in this case it would > sound like using Proxy ARP would be the best choice. But are there any > disadvantages? What about performance? > > Regards. > > On 3/8/2015 7:42 AM, PiBa wrote: > >> Says it all: https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/What_are_Virtual_IP_ >> Addresses >> Which is better, that depends on what you need it to do. >> >> Tim Hogan schreef op 8-3-2015 om 13:48: >> >>> I am setting up my firewall to do 1:1 NAT with a block of public IP >>> addresses. I have found several posts about setting up 1:1 NAT and some of >>> them say to use Proxy ARP when creating the Virtual IP and others say to >>> use IP Alias. Can someone full explain the difference between the two and >>> offer an opinion as to which would be better to use? >>> >>> Regards >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pfSense mailing list >>> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >>> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> pfSense mailing list >> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold >> > > _______________________________________________ > pfSense mailing list > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold >
_______________________________________________ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
