It aint the firewall!!
Further to default routes etc .
I believe that I have cured the problem (final testing after the network
number shift
to the 10.x.y.z range and I connect the phone line!)
Factoids:
A Windoze computers on the network are given IP numbers via DHCP from an NT
Server
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 12:52:31PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Several parts of Postfix do: connect() write() close(), where the
> >close() may happen before the server has accept()ed the connection.
> >Due to an incompatible change in FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE, this causes
> >accept() after cl
>Several parts of Postfix do: connect() write() close(), where the
>close() may happen before the server has accept()ed the connection.
>Due to an incompatible change in FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE, this causes
>accept() after close() to fail. The already written data is lost.
>This is a bad incompatible
On 7 Mar 2001 18:38:44 -0500, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you wrote:
>< said:
>
>> Now that the fxp driver seems to be outdated,
>
>Eh? What's ``outdated'' about it?
Some of the newer revs are not supported / recognized. Also, there is the
flow control issue with some switches that result in
Apparently lack of support for newer cards. See the thread on -hackers.
Tim
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 06:38:34PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > Now that the fxp driver seems to be outdated,
>
> Eh? What's ``outdated'' about it?
>
> -GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
< said:
> Now that the fxp driver seems to be outdated,
Eh? What's ``outdated'' about it?
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 17:10:09 -0600
> From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Now that the fxp driver seems to be outdated, what is recommended for
> those us that build servers on a regular basis? It's a shame, the Intel
> cards generally work best under Windoze as well and I hate to start
> buyin
Now that the fxp driver seems to be outdated, what is recommended for
those us that build servers on a regular basis? It's a shame, the Intel
cards generally work best under Windoze as well and I hate to start buying
different types of cards.
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
< said:
> A problem of updating route appears when you delete the IPv4 alias on the
> interface like this:
> # ifconfig xl0 delete 172.16.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.255
> 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 00 lo0
> 172.16 link#1 UC 0
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Nick Rogness wrote:
ACK! I read your email wrong. I responded with the correct
reply...please void the message below.
> >
> > Won't your example below show all outbound traffic from the same
> > external ip, the ip that natd uses?
> >
>
> Yes and N
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Nick Rogness wrote:
ACK! Read your message wrong...let me clarify.
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Peter Brezny wrote:
>
> >
> > Let's say I had two internal subnets that i'd like to nat with different
> > external ip's, while also doing static nat on one of each of the int
Several parts of Postfix do: connect() write() close(), where the
close() may happen before the server has accept()ed the connection.
Due to an incompatible change in FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE, this causes
accept() after close() to fail. The already written data is lost.
This is a bad incompatible chan
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Peter Brezny wrote:
>
> Won't your example below show all outbound traffic from the same
> external ip, the ip that natd uses?
>
Yes and No, if the internal machine does not have a
redirect_address statement in natd.conf then it will use the
global i
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Peter Brezny wrote:
>
> Let's say I had two internal subnets that i'd like to nat with different
> external ip's, while also doing static nat on one of each of the internal
> ip's. Could i do that by doing something like thils:
>
> rc.conf
> natd_flags="-f /etc/natd.conf1"
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Robert
>Watson wrote:
>
>>It seems that the ECONNABORTED is the "standard" way to address this
>>scenario; it might be an interesting exercise for someone to look at the
>>common application suites and see how they respond t
Let's say I had two internal subnets that i'd like to nat with different
external ip's, while also doing static nat on one of each of the internal
ip's. Could i do that by doing something like thils:
rc.conf
natd_flags="-f /etc/natd.conf1"
natd_flags="-f /etc/natd.conf2"
rc.firewall
$fwcmd add
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Robert
Watson wrote:
>It seems that the ECONNABORTED is the "standard" way to address this
>scenario; it might be an interesting exercise for someone to look at the
>common application suites and see how they respond to various failure
>modes in accept(). It certai
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Nick Rogness wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Andy [TECC NOPS] wrote:
>
>
> > Can anyone point out the obvious mistake
> > I must be making?
>
> In /etc/rc.conf:
>
> firewall_enable="YES"
>
> I can't remember if you need this even if the kernel is
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Andy [TECC NOPS] wrote:
> Can anyone point out the obvious mistake
> I must be making?
In /etc/rc.conf:
firewall_enable="YES"
I can't remember if you need this even if the kernel is compiled
with IPFIREWALL support or not.
Nick Rogn
Na did all that. Thanks thou, the answer
was actually in my own email (I think
still build new kernel) aka install
from CDRom and 4.2-STABLE. Sure the
CDRom is 4.2-RELEASE, so when did I
cvsup my kernel src tree! dunno,
reinstalled srcs so hopefully that's
sort it out.
cheers
Ak
> -Origin
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Andy [TECC NOPS] wrote:
> Just built a new kernel with
>
> options IPFIREWALL
> options IPDIVERT
>
> and all went in ok. However, when I
> user the ipfw command to add a rule
> (or when rc.firewall does) I get the
> following error message:-
>
> ipfw: getsocketopt(IP_FW_AD
Hi All
Just built a new kernel with
options IPFIREWALL
options IPDIVERT
and all went in ok. However, when I
user the ipfw command to add a rule
(or when rc.firewall does) I get the
following error message:-
ipfw: getsocketopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argument
Can anyone point out the obvious mist
> In two's complement arithmetics, yes. What matters here is how the
> the real checkers are implemented. For BSD-derived implementations,
> this does not matter. I don't know if others really exist. RFC 1624
> is pretty clear on this topic. The usual Internet principle is in place
> (from R
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 09:58:32AM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 09:40:34AM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> > >
> > > > > So that the same logic applies to TCP packets as well. Currently, we
> > > > > can send a TCP packet with a checksum of 0, which is legal. Of p
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 09:40:34AM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> >
> > > > So that the same logic applies to TCP packets as well. Currently, we
> > > > can send a TCP packet with a checksum of 0, which is legal. Of possible
> > > > interest is that Linux doesn't do this; they alwyas send a
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 09:40:34AM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>
> > > So that the same logic applies to TCP packets as well. Currently, we
> > > can send a TCP packet with a checksum of 0, which is legal. Of possible
> > > interest is that Linux doesn't do this; they alwyas send a non-zero
> > So that the same logic applies to TCP packets as well. Currently, we
> > can send a TCP packet with a checksum of 0, which is legal. Of possible
> > interest is that Linux doesn't do this; they alwyas send a non-zero
> > checksum in the TCP case, if a checksum was computed.
> >
> Hmm, but
Hi!
IP_TTL and IP_TOS setsockopt(2) options currently do not take
any effect on raw IP sockets (actually, everything that uses
rip_usrreqs function set). The attached patch fixes this.
Also, I have the question. Should we use MAXTTL constant or
net.inet.ip.ttl MIB variable, as the initial valu
It seems to be a netmask routing problem.
Can you check the net config ?
Olivier
>
>Can you ping the host you're talking to? The log lines describe
>options in a single LCP request being sent, which apparently
>cannot be sent because there is no route for the target IP addr.
>
>Barney Wolff
>
Hi FreeBSD team,
Consider this manipulation on host A:
# netstat -rn
Routing tables
Internet:
DestinationGatewayFlags Refs Use Netif
Expire
127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 00 lo0
172.16 link#1 UC 0
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:19:54AM -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 12:09:36PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > RFC768> If the computed checksum is zero, it is transmitted as all ones
> > RFC768> (the equivalent in one's complement arithmetic). An all zero
> > R
31 matches
Mail list logo
