RE: 802.1q vlans and STABLE

2001-02-22 Thread Peter Blok
I am working with VLANs and a BayStack 450-T without stability problems, except when you configure NETGRAPH at the same time. The kernel crashes during boot-up. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Tancsa Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 04

Re: 802.1q vlans and STABLE

2001-02-22 Thread Peter Jeremy
On 2001-Feb-22 22:13:20 -0500, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >are vlans and the fxp driver ready for prime time ? I've been running a system with 6 VLANs on an fxp for about 6 months now without problems. The system has currently been up nearly 3 weeks (following a blackout) and had bee

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 04:34:05AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:20:44PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 03:49:52AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > > > I still think we should react to the following as a minimum > > > - type 3 code 0 n

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 09:20:44PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 03:49:52AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > I still think we should react to the following as a minimum > > - type 3 code 0 net unreachable > > - type 3 code 1 host unreachable > > RFC 1122, Sect

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 03:49:52AM +0100, Jesper Skriver wrote: > > I still think we should react to the following as a minimum > - type 3 code 0 net unreachable > - type 3 code 1 host unreachable RFC 1122, Section 4.2.3.9 says: oDestination Unreachable -- codes 0, 1, 5

802.1q vlans and STABLE

2001-02-22 Thread Mike Tancsa
Hi, are vlans and the fxp driver ready for prime time ? I have a situation where I would like to deploy a simple network which looks like [network vlan #1]-[cat5500]-[network vlan #2] | | |

Re: ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jesper Skriver
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 06:54:12PM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote: I was just about to send a MFC of the current code out for review, will ditch that ... > I recently had a bug report regarding kqueue, where the kevent() call > for a TCP socket would return because so_error was set, but the > conne

Re: HEADS UP: Major RPC subsystem patch. (ti-rpc, lockd, nfs over ipv6)

2001-02-22 Thread Alfred Perlstein
An updated patch is available here: http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/tirpc.diff.gz please see the homepage at: http://www.attic.ch/tirpc.html Martin has a script that you need to run to create the directories otherwise patch(1) gets confused. * Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010222 01

nat forwarding

2001-02-22 Thread Peter Brezny
After reading through the natd man page, I think I understand what I need to do to redirect requests to one specified ip to another, however, I don't understand where I put this config info. i currently start natd with rc.conf with the following lines: natd_enable="YES" #natd_config="/etc/rc.nat

ICMP unreachables, take II.

2001-02-22 Thread Jonathan Lemon
I recently had a bug report regarding kqueue, where the kevent() call for a TCP socket would return because so_error was set, but the connection was still valid. The cause of this was because a non-blocking connect() call was made, and then the socket was monitored for writability. However, an

ipfw simple quesiton

2001-02-22 Thread Peter Brezny
Hello, I've just added a second external interface to a machine. I'd like to not have to duplicate all the rules that involve outside interfaces. I've got rules like $fwcmd add deny all from 0.0.0.0/8 to any in via $oif is it possible to specify multiple interfaces for one rule by l

Re: Help with IPSEC

2001-02-22 Thread Lars Eggert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > you can create a similar packet by using IPsec transport mode against > gif-encapsulated packet, however, it does not look exactly the same. > if the other end is picky about packet format, they may drop it > because it does not conform to

Re: - N2d PCI & Driver Option -

2001-02-22 Thread John Hay
> > > > > > The reason why it is not working is almost certainly in the driver. > > > > > > There are two kinds of cables used with these cards. > > > SDL Communications, the manufacturer, supplies x.21 cables > > > that have the input clock pin tied to the output clock pin. > > > > > > Normaly I

Re: user PPP HDLC errors

2001-02-22 Thread George Fedorenko
Hi Clark! On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Clark Gaylord wrote: > I noticed similar errors upon starting PPP sessions ... are you bringing up > the second line every couple minutes? You mean second line in MP bundle? two leased lines with equal parameters, don't think so... or some another ppp links on t

Re: - N2d PCI & Driver Option -

2001-02-22 Thread Jean-Christophe Varaillon
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, John Hay wrote: > > >On Thu, 22 Feb 2001,Jean-Christophe Varaillon wrote: > > > > +---+ Serial Interface+-+ > > | cisco | | FreeBSD 4.1 | > > | 3600 }--{}---{ | > > | | N2d |

Re: user PPP HDLC errors

2001-02-22 Thread Clark Gaylord
I noticed similar errors upon starting PPP sessions ... are you bringing up the second line every couple minutes? What this seemed to be was some ASCII overlap at the beginning of the PPP session. I was using ASCII (i.e. scripted) login at the time and the message the access server sent ("your a

RE: - N2d PCI & Driver option _

2001-02-22 Thread Andy [TECC NOPS]
Guy's, don't forget that the Cisco needs a special cable also and infact as far as know don't make them as standard! I had to get mine specially made up for me. If the pinning is not correct at the cisco end it will not produce a clock even if the config says to do so. Cisco's rely on certain pin

Re: - N2d PCI & Driver option _

2001-02-22 Thread John Hay
> > +---+ Serial Interface+-+ > | cisco | | FreeBSD 4.1 | > | 3600 }--{}---{ | > | | N2d | | > +---+ card+-+ > x.x.x.145 x.x.x.146 > > > I need help t

- N2d PCI & Driver option _

2001-02-22 Thread Jean-Christophe Varaillon
John, +---+ Serial Interface +-+ | cisco | | FreeBSD 4.1 | | 3600 }--{}---{ | | | N2d | | +---+ card+-+ x.x.x.145 x.x.x.146 I need help to

HEADS UP: Major RPC subsystem patch. (ti-rpc, lockd, nfs over ipv6)

2001-02-22 Thread Alfred Perlstein
Martin Blapp has been working with me and Daniel Eischen to port the NetBSD port of ti-rpc to FreeBSD. For more information (patches, description and scripts) please go to: http://www.attic.ch/tirpc.html Since this delta is _huge_ and starting to become difficult to maintain I would like to shoo

Re: Would you tell me how to write a timer in FreeBSD user space ?

2001-02-22 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010221 22:15] wrote: > Hi > > I am newbie. Would you tell me how to write a timer in FreeBSD user space ? see the manpages for: sleep(3), nanosleep(2), getitimer(2), and alarm(3). -- -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To Unsubscr

Re: Help with IPSEC

2001-02-22 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:00:09AM +1100, Stephen Cimarelli wrote: > * Most users seem to use gif devices to setup the tunnels instead of IPsec > tunnels, Why? gif is the name of the device used to implement tunneling. > What ports/protocols do I need to allow through a firewall to allow gif an

pptp, mpd and chap msoftv2

2001-02-22 Thread Hroi Sigurdsson
I'm trying to establish a pptp tunnel to a Watchguard Firebox II with mpd-netgraph. I'm getting LCP rejects and the Firebox II is complaining about out-of-order GRE packets but not sure if that is the cause of problems :-( Also I think there is a problem negotiating an auth protocol. CHAP MSOFT vs

Implementing pseudo-ethernet interface for Basilisk II

2001-02-22 Thread Conrad Sabatier
I'm wondering (before delving into this and possibly wasting many hours) if it would be possible to use, say, netgraph to implement a pseudo-interface for Basilisk II's ethernet device? Been having no luck whatsoever getting B2 to network in any way, shape or form, and thought this might be a lik

Re: Help with IPSEC

2001-02-22 Thread itojun
>> * Most users seem to use gif devices to setup the tunnels instead of IPsec >> tunnels, Why? >gif is the name of the device used to implement tunneling. >> What ports/protocols do I need to allow through a firewall to allow gif and >> IPsec to work? >gif isn't a protocol, it's an interface name