Please don't send messages individually to me and then to a list.
Send to both at the same time with the same message - it wastes less
of peoples time.
This is my answer to your personal email with the same content:
: Hi,
:
: The ``host is down'' message just means it's getting no response from
: a directly connected host. I'm not sure what the question is here.
: If you're trying to send stuff via your cable-providers server,
: surely this means it's not responding ?
:
: BTW, you're best bet is to at least cc freebsd-questions as you're
: more likely to find a better answer there.
> Hi guys. I have been using 3.2-Release for quite some time now as a
> natd. Normally I have no problems with this setup at all. However, I just
> realized, after perusing my logs, I have been getting this error.
>
> Jul 18 17:58:41 daemon natd[107]: failed to write packet back (Host is down)
> Jul 18 17:58:41 daemon natd[107]: failed to write packet back (No route to
> host)
> Jul 18 17:58:45 daemon natd[107]: failed to write packet back (No route to
> host)
>
> (I only greped for natd in this case, it naturally has the 'last message
> repeated' for quite some time in between logs)
>
>
> Normally I get this error when my 'cable' modem goes down, so it makes
> sense that there is no route to host. However, as I checked the more
> recent logs.
>
> Jul 25 00:06:07 daemon natd[107]: failed to write packet back (Host is down)
> Jul 25 00:06:12 daemon last message repeated 3 times
> Jul 25 00:45:30 daemon natd[107]: failed to write packet back (Host is down)
> Jul 25 00:51:54 daemon last message repeated 18 times
>
> Now, this error is a bit different. There is no '(No route to host)' error
> this time. And, I get this error yet the cable modem interface did NOT go
> down. I do not think I changed anything significant, however, I did add
> these kernel options around the '5th of june'.
>
> pseudo-device bpfilter 4 #Berkeley packet filter
>
> #NATD
> options IPFIREWALL
> options IPDIVERT
>
> #DUMMYNET
> options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE
> options IPFIREWALL_VERBOSE_LIMIT=10
> options DUMMYNET
> options NMBCLUSTERS=1024
>
> #SOFTUPDATES
> options SOFTUPDATES
>
> #NCFTPD SHARED MEM
> #options SHMMAXPGS=1024
>
> #SHARED MEM OPTIONS FROM LINT
> options SHMALL=1025
> options "SHMMAX=(SHMMAXPGS*PAGE_SIZE+1)"
> options SHMMAXPGS=1025
> options SHMMIN=2
> options SHMMNI=33
> options SHMSEG=9
>
> Ok. Now, I do use dummynet, however, using ipfw show, there was no usage
> on that particular "pipe". The machine has maxusers set to 128, and is a
> k6-200 with 32 megs of ram, using Dec PCI nics (two of them), on an
> asus97-XE, TX Chipset. I really think the issue is software based over
> hardware since previous logs did not have such a "large" amount of this
> natd failure to write back. (previous to the 5th of july which was the
> last time I modified my new kernel file). I also run these services on top
> of the standard ones, like apache13+php3 with ssl, and I added my own
> loadable module, mod_fastcgi, mysqld, postgresql, ncftpd, socks5, sshd,
> with the default tcp wrapper, telnetd, and ftpd. (Hm. I could eliminate
> running mysqld, even I only have 32 megs of ram, my machine 'does' seem ok
> with the 'load', Kudos to FreeBSD power!).
>
> Now, I highly doubt if I just remake world it will 'fix' anything, however,
> I am ready to remake world since I am using 3.2-RELEASE. However, I was
> not aware of any significant fixes done to natd code during this
> time. (sorry if I missed it, by the way, is there a direct listing of
> fixes that grows as we progress through stable? I know it is cumbersome
> though, and we must as well just add the list in each release, but just
> curious for convenience sake).
>
> Ok. So, are any of my options somewhat "limiting" and causing a pipe to be
> full or something odd like that? Or is this a known problem and I should
> consider getting my machine 'synched' with 3.2-STABLE? It has to be my
> kernel setup or a 'bug' that has been squashed some how, right?
>
> On the side, could it be my bpf filter is not high enough? I do use dhcpd,
> but I only host maybe 3 clients. (they are not always even on all the time).
>
> Thanks in advance, I am sure we can find a solution for this problem.
>
> -Carroll Kong
--
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
