> i have just committed some code to RELENG_4 to at least
> detect, log and obviate to the stalls.
> I'd be grateful if you could give a try to the new code.
>
> cheers
> luigi
Hello,
(Sorry if my english is not so good...)
I have a FreBSD 4.2 RELEASE box which act to brigde/dummynet, and a few
I'm writing an interface to implement something like the DTI interface
from draft-ietf-ngtrans-dstm-03.txt
As part of that, I need to have a userland daemon (a modified dhcp
client) assign an address to the interface, which is easy using the
ioctl mechanism.
The tricky bit is finding a way f
Unique Messaging Solutions:
It's not just about email anymore. Built on advanced messaging technology,
we offer Internet messaging infrastructure solutions for corporations and
service providers such as ISPs, telcos and portals.
Fully scalable, our solutions enable customers to manage the technol
Am 18.01.2001 um 11:57:51 schrieb Luigi Rizzo:
Hi Luigi,
> apparently no traffic is matching the pipe.
that's the point. I rearranged the rules - Now it works ;-).
Is there a way to limit just *any* traffic so that you have not to
specify the protocol (ip/tcp/udp/icmp).
I did not find anything
apparently no traffic is matching the pipe.
what does "ipfw show" says ?
cheers
luigi
>
> Hi Luigi,
>
> thanks again for your help
>
> > KB stands for kbytes not bits. "ipfw pipe show" should tell
> > you what is going wrong
>
> it shows the following:
>
> 0001: 128.000 kbit/
Am 18.01.2001 um 11:41:40 schrieb Luigi Rizzo:
Hi Luigi,
thanks again for your help
> KB stands for kbytes not bits. "ipfw pipe show" should tell
> you what is going wrong
it shows the following:
0001: 128.000 kbit/s 0 ms 10 sl. 0 queues (1 buckets) droptail
maks: 0x00 0x/0x
KB stands for kbytes not bits. "ipfw pipe show" should tell
you what is going wrong
luigi
>
> I want to limit the bandwith for each IP accessing my computer to
> 128KBit/s (2*ISDN). So I added the following rules to ipfw:
>
> ipfw add pipe 1 ip from any to any
> ipfw add pipe 2 tcp fro
Hi again,
I want to limit the bandwith for each IP accessing my computer to
128KBit/s (2*ISDN). So I added the following rules to ipfw:
ipfw add pipe 1 ip from any to any
ipfw add pipe 2 tcp from any to any
ipfw add pipe 3 udp from any to any
ipfw add pipe 4 icmp from any to any
ipfw pipe 1 conf
Am 18.01.2001 um 13:28:22 schrieb Clemens Hermann:
Hi,
problem solved, one should not forget make clean before recompiling ;-)
/ch
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
< said:
> the ``.Brq Va sysctl.variable'' should be used. Why introduce .Sc?
For the same reason as we have .Er in addition to .Dv.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 10:47:00AM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> >> +Increasing the
> >> +.Va net.inet.ip.portrange.last
> > +sysctl variable
> >> +(which defaults to 5000) may help this problem.
>
> We really should define a special markup for these so that it is not
> necessary
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, John Telford wrote:
> Is there a way to do the opposite of Peter Brezny's question "Redundant
> connections from separate isp's possible?" He had muliple incoming
> connections to his Web servers.
> I have 2 ISP's but almost all of my traffic is from the inside out, employee
< said:
>> +Increasing the
>> +.Va net.inet.ip.portrange.last
> +sysctl variable
>> +(which defaults to 5000) may help this problem.
We really should define a special markup for these so that it is not
necessary to so frequently repeat this.
POSIX uses {braces} for potentially-configurable sy
< said:
> Does this look reasonable to people? Based on
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=24125
> +.It Bq Er EAGAIN
> +A resource was temporarily unavailable.
> +This could indicate there are no port numbers available for use when a port
> +number is being chosen automatically.
If t
I would. In fact my company has plans to do that very same thing in the near
future...hopefully with BGP...
cheers,
mikel
John Telford wrote:
> Is there a way to do the opposite of Peter Brezny's question "Redundant
> connections from separate isp's possible?" He had muliple incoming
> conne
Ben Smithurst wrote:
> +This could indicate there are no port numbers available for use when a port
> +number is being chosen automatically.
> +Increasing the
> +.Va net.inet.ip.portrange.last
+sysctl variable
> +(which defaults to 5000) may help this problem.
oops.
--
Ben Smithurst / [EMAIL
Does this look reasonable to people? Based on
http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=24125
--- connect.2 2000/11/22 16:01:11 1.14
+++ connect.2 2001/01/18 11:28:14
@@ -142,6 +142,13 @@
The socket is non-blocking
and a previous connection attempt
has not yet been completed.
+.It Bq
Hi,
I want to use ipfw & dummynet. I recompiled the kernel accordingly
(options DUMMYNET is in) and the firewall works. But as soon as I try to
set a pipe according to the manpage like this:
ipfw add pipe 1 ip from any to any out
I get the following error:
ipfw: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid
18 matches
Mail list logo
