2.1 now release candidate tagged

May 22nd, 2013 by Chris Buechler

We’ve tagged 2.1 as RC0, as release time nears. This means it’s feature-complete, and has no significant known regressions from prior releases. How much longer until release depends on what’s discovered from here out. We don’t anticipate there being a long release candidate cycle, given how widespread 2.1 usage has been over the past year plus. Now’s the time to help test!

Please post anything that requires follow up to the 2.1 board on the forum rather than the comments here on the blog. Far more people are active on the forum and will see it there.

The master branch in git has been bumped to 2.2-ALPHA in preparation for development on 2.2 release. We’ll soon be putting efforts into getting our patches and code up to speed for FreeBSD 10.x for 2.2 release.

88 Responses to “2.1 now release candidate tagged”

  1. deSastro Says:

    Does Pfsense Book is also in the latest release
    Candidate ?
    :)

  2. Chris Buechler Says:

    Yep! The 2.1 edition of the book is already available for support customers, we’re working on the editing and review process now.

  3. Nimamhd Says:

    This is really good news.

  4. Mat Says:

    Chris, that means that one should be abe to get it via the pfSense support portal?
    Would be awesome to have an update pfSense “Bible” for polishing our 2.1 box.

  5. traxxus Says:

    How i can upgrade from 2.0.3 to 2.1 RC0?

  6. ryan c Says:

    Congrats guys and thanks for all the hard work! I look forward to testing 2.1 at home.

  7. Adam Says:

    Is there a change log? Would be nice to know all the great things that went into this. Thanks for the best firewall period!

  8. Bart Sigler Says:

    When does the Full release come out ?

  9. Jim Says:

    After upgrading today, all my packages were removed… including AutoConfigBackup

    Looks like its a version problem that it does not know that they are ok?

    Hopefully you can resolve shortly.

  10. Chris Buechler Says:

    Jim: post info to the forum. That’s usually a problem with a specific package, there isn’t a general package problem in the base system.

  11. Chris Says:

    @Bart Sigler: When you read the first paragraph of the post again, when would YOU expect it to come out?
    Maybe take a deep breath after the first sentence and continue reading it out loud.

  12. Fernando Martínez Says:

    It was really really funny what “Bart Sigler” asked.

  13. will Says:

    Congratulations!!! this is the best.

  14. Torsten Says:

    Will this Version finaly support Microsoft HyperV or is it still required to build my own kernel for HyperV support?

    Thanks in advance!

  15. Chris Buechler Says:

    HyperV patches are not included in 2.1. We may put out an appliance specifically for it later, or maybe to coincide with 2.1 release, that’s still TBD.

  16. NoBlueScreen Says:

    Excellent news! Looking forward to release.

  17. Andi Says:

    Who is using Microsoft products in a stable and secure environment? arrg :)

  18. Rusty Says:

    @Andi, people who neither understand stability nor security, but think they know both better than anyone else.One wonders if all of their HA cluster elements are running off the same PDU breaker.

  19. Andrei Says:

    Will the final 2.1 version will have a working IPv6-PD over PPPoE ? I’m still on 2.1 DEV which is great, but tried the 2.1 BETA in which PD didn’t work.

    Thanks.

  20. Chris Buechler Says:

    PD with PPPoE is one thing that will definitely be fixed. I’m not sure that’s still an issue (none of us have PPPoE w/PD), though I believe DHCPv6 PD is.

  21. Jordan Says:

    Just to address the question who uses Hyper-V, we do. For 750+ HOST. It’s rock solid.

  22. Andrei Says:

    Thanks Chris.
    Actually, the WAN is:
    IPv4 Config type: PPPoE
    IPv6 Config type: DHCPv6
    DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation size: 64

    Will I be able to use the configuration file from 2.1DEV in the final version ?

  23. Andrei Says:

    @Chris
    Just checked the RC0 on a VM
    On the LAN interface the option for IPv6 Static configuration:
    “DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation ID This ID sets the delegated DHCP-PD prefix number which will be used to setup the interface” is longer present in RC0 and
    is present in the DEV version. Is it supposed to work like that ?

  24. Chris Buechler Says:

    Andrei: post info to the 2.1 board on the forum, others have been working on that at some point. I’m not sure whether that DHCPv6+PPPoE scenario will be accommodated (which should be extremely uncommon to encounter, most use PPPoE w/PD instead).

  25. Andrei Says:

    @Chris. Thanks a lot. Done: http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,63257.0.html

  26. Armando Soto Says:

    Sorry, but I can not find the image to download. I just find the 2.0.3 image. Where could I get the 2.1 rc0 image?

    Thank you.

  27. Ismashkhy Says:

    Any major super duper overhauling?, additions?,

  28. Chris Buechler Says:

    downloads at http://snapshots.pfsense.org

  29. Bill McGonigle Says:

    OK, RC means I roll it out for my own sites. :) 3 branches connected via OpenVPN, two running pfSense, one on an Atom with em interfaces and a SATA HD, one on a Via with re interfaces and an ide cf flash card, both using VLAN’s for everything. Auto-upgraded both from 2.0.3, they rebooted correctly, the OpenVPN’s came back up from all sites, VLAN’s are fine, and I have no issues to report currently. The web interface is much more responsive on both devices and I just noticed the routing button on the OpenVPN status which is heaven-sent. Great work, guys!

  30. Francisco Says:

    This is too much.

    Thank you.

    I have to say that previous betas are working great in my production environments. Now its time to an upgrade and some tests.

    Yes, I’ve faith on you.

    Asterisk is doing fine behind pfSense with static outbound ports

  31. Ismashkhy Says:

    I deployed the v2.1 on a production environment with 25 users,
    I must admit it, the overhaul is non-other-than the “Feel” itself, yup much responsive, and everything is a WAW!,

    RC1 must be the much awaited!…

    more power guys!.

  32. Paul S Says:

    @Fransisco: do you mean that this bug is also solved: http://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/1629

    were one needs to reset the state to enable Asterisk to register again with the provider after the wan connection failed and returned ?

    pfSense rulez !

  33. Stephenish Says:

    When can we expect pfSense: A Definitive Users Guide v 2.1?

  34. Chris Buechler Says:

    Stephenish: soon. It’s more or less done, being edited now.

  35. Chris Buechler Says:

    Paul: that generally isn’t applicable, though that one in particular will have a work around for those it is applicable to in 2.1.

  36. Juriaan Bakx Says:

    Will upgrading to 2.1RC0 means the next update is RC1 or RTM or does it continuously update like a rolling release till RTM

  37. Dan Lundqvist Says:

    Chris: Will the 2.1 book be released to Amazon or which dealer should I look at ?
    I bought the 1st edition when it came out and I will pick the 2nd edition (2.1) up in hard-copy as soon as it will hit the shelf.

    I really enjoy working with pfSense and the hard-copy is easier to read.

    Best regards
    Dan Lundqvist
    Stockholm, Sweden

  38. Chris Buechler Says:

    Dan: we’ll have more info here on the blog, and via our announcements list when it’s available. It will be available in print through Amazon.
    http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/announce

  39. mimi Says:

    Gus where is the download link for this?

  40. Teleweb Says:

    Another vote for Hyper-V support!

    We regularly deploy pfSense VMs on Hyper-V hosts for connecting remote machines/networks, as well as in testing/training setups of course.

  41. Mikkel Georgsen Says:

    Hi Chris,

    Thank you for your and the teams hard work. pfSense is an amazing product and can’t wait to see what you guys come up with in 2.1.

    Any chance there will be a way to track bandwidth hogs in a multi-lan/vlan setup? It would be nice to have a realtime or near-realtime list of bandwidth users between two interfaces sorted by bandwidth, ip.

    Best regards,
    Mikkel Georgsen
    Manila, Philippines

  42. Bhavin Patel Says:

    From where i can download new 2.1 for testing .. i would like to upgrade from 2.0.3 to 2.1

  43. Mark Says:

    I just updated from 2.0.3 to 2.1 RC0 on a maxterm maxspeed 3300 (identical hardware to the 8300) without any issues.

  44. Michael Noack Says:

    We migrated our old pfsense 1.2.3 setup to the RC0 without major issues. Some minor caveats caught us when migrating the configuration. Our old virtual IP setup wasn’t working anymore. We switched those to the new “IP Alias” type.

    We are waiting for the 2.1 book now, as the old one was really of great help in the past when handling tricky setups.

  45. Leon Straathof Says:

    Does this mean that the website will be updated as well many topics like selection and sizing are still for 1.2 The main site could use a overhaul….

  46. Chris Buechler Says:

    Leon: a whole new www site is largely done and will be coming soon.

  47. joe Says:

    Here’s another vote for Hyper-V support.

  48. Chris Says:

    Another vote for Hyper-V support! We love pfsense and currently use it in Hyper-V in production environments.

  49. Arthur Says:

    Another vote for Hyper-V support, i found a modified version with intragrated drivers on this guy’s blog : http://alexappleton.net/ but i still can’t get CARP IP to work :/

  50. RB Says:

    I applaud the pfsense team for this great achivement.
    By the way will there be a MIPS version out for 2.1 ?

  51. Fabrice Says:

    Here’s another vote for Hyper-V support.

  52. lenti Says:

    Another vote for Hyper-V support!

  53. Lars Says:

    I want to steal a vote fro Hyper-V away, there are too many in the table and I might be able to sell the vote on ebay.

  54. john Says:

    A long release candidate cycle! When you release stable version?

  55. Brian Says:

    Will 2.1 support the VMXNET3 driver in VMware (with VLAN support), or is this not really a pfSense problem? I also would love to see a changelog. Thanks!

  56. Cory Says:

    Another vote for Hyper-V Support! :)
    Can’t wait for final release thanks guys.

  57. Thomas Says:

    Seems that pfSense is now RC1
    yay :)

  58. kamserg Says:

    Another vote for Hyper-V 3.0 support!

  59. LJ Says:

    Another vote for hyper-V with Windows Server 2012

  60. Andy Says:

    Looking forward to buying the book for 2.1 the moment it is released.

  61. Lars Says:

    @jhon Better a long, well tested and performed QA cycle, than releasing with bugs to production environments.

  62. Gian Zack Says:

    One vote for hyper-v support from Italy

    Ciao everyone

  63. tradse Says:

    One more vote for hyper-v support.

  64. tester_002 Says:

    Hyper-v support!!!

  65. Stas Says:

    It would be so good if finally pfSense could work on Hyper-V with CARP support!

    Hope this will happen one day

  66. mikas Says:

    One vote for hyper-v support!

  67. markgill Says:

    Yet another vote for Hyper-V support! Many corps are using it…

  68. Juri Says:

    And another one for Hyper-V.
    We are a hosting company and many of our customers need a virtual firewall, mainly for VPN purposes. As a hoster I surely can install one of those lets say UTM from Sophos or other, but those are way to heavy for what we need.

    Go for Hyper-V! :-)

  69. Danil Says:

    + 1 vote for Hyper-V!! and CARP

  70. Peter Clark Says:

    I would also like to see Hyper-V support.

  71. Leo Cheng Says:

    +1 vote for Hyper-V with synthetic network adapter

  72. Jordan Says:

    Hyper-v support please!!!! As you can see, Hyper-V is where the hopes are!! thx. Also, please do not release this like 2.0.3; have a great release.

  73. Gerben Says:

    +1 vote for Hyper-V.

  74. Aaron Manzano Says:

    Citrix XenServer and Hyper-V

  75. Taliesin Says:

    +1 vote for Hyper-V.

  76. David Says:

    So I actually looked at the snapshots site again. I do see RC2. Oops. Kindly ignore one of my above -1′s.

    But the -1 for no news update, applies even more. :)

    So apparently lots of work has been going on, but none of us semi-casual users have been giving you guys credit. (!)

    I can’t be the only one who cares enough about pfSense to check your site/blog every couple of weeks, but not enough to actually hang out on the dev lists.

  77. Ian Lever Says:

    +2 vote for Hyper-V.

  78. Darvish Says:

    I’m completely agree with David.

  79. Darkk Says:

    I just upgraded to the 2.1 release today and it went smoothly. No issues so far.

    Great job guys!!

  80. Jeremy Says:

    I’m using 2.0.1 on Hyper V with Server 2012 and it works great, but I’d feel much better if it was officially supported. I’m afraid to update to 2.1 in case it breaks my install.

  81. Florian Says:

    Hyper-V support would just be perfect! Go for it dev team!!

  82. samsu Says:

    According to FreeBSD 10 ALPHA2 announcement they imported Hyper-V driver. It’s great for future 2.2 release.

  83. tushar jadhav Says:

    Great jobs guys, cannot wait for the 2.1 book and read it front to back, word for word and put all the information in my brain.

    Tushar.

  84. Justin Says:

    I wanted to add to the long list of praise your team so deserves. Thank you all who contributed to this project as it is one of the best if not the best out there in the wild. keep up the stellar work and hope to enjoy more developments in the near future.

  85. garegin Says:

    another hyper-v user here. I think you need to create a fixed disk. it doesn’t work with dynamically expanding disks

  86. savun Says:

    Thanks for your kindly upgrade .
    I just test the new version now.

    Thanks!

  87. motty Says:

    Please include WCCP protocol support along with pfsense then only the working of proxy and web content filter become more aggressive and reliable

  88. pfsense rocks Says:

    Looking forward to the shiny in this new version.

Please don’t post technical questions or off-topic comments. It is far more likely that your questions and concerns will be addressed effectively through one of our support channels.

Leave a Reply