<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Multiple PPPoE, PPTP, and Dynamic DNS now supported in 1.3!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.pfsense.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215</link>
	<description>News, reviews and more related to the pfSense firewall project</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 17:03:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Triston</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-3068</link>
		<dc:creator>Triston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:58:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-3068</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just wanted to add some more praise to the PFSense team.    We have PFSense/Soekris boxes in Africa and here in the UK with persistant oVPN tuns  - and apart from a little hw flail they are rock solid. Gonna download the latest Alpha of 2.0 for our own office (multi PPPoE is the money-shot for us) and see how it goes.   I wish I was a coder and could contrib - but I hope a donation now and brings enough karma.  Cheers.  Tris]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just wanted to add some more praise to the PFSense team.    We have PFSense/Soekris boxes in Africa and here in the UK with persistant oVPN tuns  &#8211; and apart from a little hw flail they are rock solid. Gonna download the latest Alpha of 2.0 for our own office (multi PPPoE is the money-shot for us) and see how it goes.   I wish I was a coder and could contrib &#8211; but I hope a donation now and brings enough karma.  Cheers.  Tris</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Buechler</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-3049</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Buechler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:37:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-3049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Martin: the only way features get back ported is when someone pays to have it done in their own custom release, as there are no new features added to 1.2.x. If you would like to fund that development, email me. I&#039;m not sure if anyone would be willing to do this one, because this change ties into very significant back end interface handling changes, so it may be a huge amount of work to back port.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Martin: the only way features get back ported is when someone pays to have it done in their own custom release, as there are no new features added to 1.2.x. If you would like to fund that development, email me. I&#8217;m not sure if anyone would be willing to do this one, because this change ties into very significant back end interface handling changes, so it may be a huge amount of work to back port.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-3048</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-3048</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is there any possibility that the dual PPPoE feature will be back-ported to 1.2.x? Would be super nice to have sometimes ... :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any possibility that the dual PPPoE feature will be back-ported to 1.2.x? Would be super nice to have sometimes &#8230; <img src='http://blog.pfsense.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-2186</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-2186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Man, every new report on 1.3 makes me feel like I need a cold shower. :)

Seriously though, you guys rock and I can&#039;t wait to take it for a spin.

I keep meaning to see if I can get a test lab version set up locally and see if I can&#039;t figure out some way to contribute. I just love this project.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man, every new report on 1.3 makes me feel like I need a cold shower. <img src='http://blog.pfsense.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Seriously though, you guys rock and I can&#8217;t wait to take it for a spin.</p>
<p>I keep meaning to see if I can get a test lab version set up locally and see if I can&#8217;t figure out some way to contribute. I just love this project.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darkk</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-2072</link>
		<dc:creator>Darkk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-2072</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am looking forward to 1.3 with the ability of NATTING PPTP connections.  I wanted to deploy 1.2 out in the field but found out about the current PPTP limitation for outbound connections to our single PPTP server won&#039;t work in our environment.  I could use site-to-site OpenVPN but most of our users are used to using PPTP connections so I want to keep things simple.

Keep up the great work guys and it shows!!

Darkk]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am looking forward to 1.3 with the ability of NATTING PPTP connections.  I wanted to deploy 1.2 out in the field but found out about the current PPTP limitation for outbound connections to our single PPTP server won&#8217;t work in our environment.  I could use site-to-site OpenVPN but most of our users are used to using PPTP connections so I want to keep things simple.</p>
<p>Keep up the great work guys and it shows!!</p>
<p>Darkk</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-2043</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-2043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ermal has done some great things for us... per user bandwidth limiting, awesome work, and thanks!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ermal has done some great things for us&#8230; per user bandwidth limiting, awesome work, and thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aparecido goes</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-1994</link>
		<dc:creator>aparecido goes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-1994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am happy with the news of pf sense, have used monowall, alias he serves me very well, but I am looking into the possibility spend using pf sense, I thank the good work of developers.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am happy with the news of pf sense, have used monowall, alias he serves me very well, but I am looking into the possibility spend using pf sense, I thank the good work of developers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Buechler</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-1754</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Buechler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-1754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yom:  no. We&#039;ll have an update posted here when there is one.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yom:  no. We&#8217;ll have an update posted here when there is one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yom</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-1753</link>
		<dc:creator>Yom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-1753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi,

Thank you for your amazing work in this wonderfull product.

Do you have any news about this :

[...]Work in progress

   1. Better PPTP and FTP handling in NAT. The PPTP fixes will allow multiple outbound connections to the same external PPTP server using a single public IP. Details of that issue on the Features page on the website under PPTP/GRE NAT limitation.[...]

Greetings]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>Thank you for your amazing work in this wonderfull product.</p>
<p>Do you have any news about this :</p>
<p>[...]Work in progress</p>
<p>   1. Better PPTP and FTP handling in NAT. The PPTP fixes will allow multiple outbound connections to the same external PPTP server using a single public IP. Details of that issue on the Features page on the website under PPTP/GRE NAT limitation.[...]</p>
<p>Greetings</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FreeBSD roundup - week 30 &#124; FreeBSD - the unknown Giant</title>
		<link>http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215&#038;cpage=1#comment-1704</link>
		<dc:creator>FreeBSD roundup - week 30 &#124; FreeBSD - the unknown Giant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:24:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pfsense.org/?p=215#comment-1704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] pfSense Ermal Luçi has added to a number of great interface and dynamic DNS related improvements to pfSense 1.3. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] pfSense Ermal Luçi has added to a number of great interface and dynamic DNS related improvements to pfSense 1.3. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
