From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 25 02:14:03 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E5C106566B for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 02:14:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979198FC13 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 02:14:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so378703fxm.13 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:14:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8nzynEqGFGDXZNnkwdkBo/9ExwqmYB/ZVTFwjo3GgOA=; b=VPgIPdRM4YtEDa9SCWKQZGc0XUyT1vsdsYBmCuNa+gEYtps3CrS2zBYEnpOorleTng 8tLeksulOFepliCAqT+aXyqOq4Cp8dtO9sNd75+Znf3IpozmBBXFG3ozMyb7sf2Zg7SH LgCuf97IaO10YhVmNjoWVa0tjzIj82JqsgVvs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=AmEOmFRmqcm7glkzTMPmVVzuulVLxSIcPUFNLC/yITn5JfVpGGdAQnL3LlG3O9VSo0 9MnpuZXlYtCUV9YMZu4mYwUCfmT5KJfc3M659RBSKw76u0OeucaecfJycgj7EWCV865z yJ+tzJYdeyFoXlb7twpmMK6ghNjNLRsrd2dUw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.79.13 with SMTP id n13mr93767fak.139.1290651241474; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:14:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.121.138 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:14:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20101125012006.GA4263@thought.org> References: <20101124014312.GB12000@thought.org> <20101125012006.GA4263@thought.org> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:14:01 -0600 Message-ID: From: Adam Vande More To: Gary Kline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Goran Lowkrantz , FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: foo; no such thing as a "dual-nic" atom firewall X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 02:14:03 -0000 On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Gary Kline wrote: > Anybody? > Gary, in case you didn't catch it the pcengines link already given to you is low power setup with comsumption comparable or better than an Atom. It's also been tested with FreeBSD and pfSense according to the manufacturers site. There's nothing wrong with Atom, but different models have different chipsets/NIC's and there may be a possibility of unsupported hardware. Perhaps it might be easier for you to go with a known commodity. pfSense documentation is offered on their website as well as community support. I suggest you start there. -- Adam Vande More