6 ms·
I was going to go with pfSense for that feature. Do you think it makes sense?
by listic 12y ago
I was going to go with pfSense for that feature. Do you think it makes sense?
- jfroma 12y agoI used pfSense in a very different context (vpn gateway) and I used the vmware image option. I haven't used the multiwan feature and I don't know if it can be installed on (almost) any router as openwrt. I did tried dd-wrt for this same purpose, the interface is much better, it is very flexible as openwrt, but I couldn't put my wifi on client and AP mode at the same time and I needed to connect to one of my WAN using wifi because that modem is not close enough yet.
- pyvpx 12y agopfSense is a re-packaged FreeBSD. you'll find pfSense doesn't support as wide a variety of platforms (anything MIPS) or wireless cards.
- anonbanker 12y agothat's quite disingenuous. it uses pf, openSSH, and LibreSSL (in development version) from OpenBSD on top of a FreeBSD core, and it's wireless card support is not very much below linux (though you might need to work to get it up). if you have older x86 hardware, it's hard to top pfsense.
- anonbanker 12y agoif you have hardware that supports both pfsense and openWRT, choose pfsense. it's far more robust a package.