> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:46:15 -0400,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Assume that a ipv6 packet has to travel through a ipv4 network to an ipv6
>destination host.
> As usual the appropriate routing entry is found for the destination address &
>nd6_output through the function pointer calls
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:57:00 -0400,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> 1) My system version( output of uname -a)
> FReeBSD 4.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE #19: Sat Jun 2 23:43:40 IST 2001
> root@:/usr/src/sys/compile/PFXKERNEL i386.
Unfortunately, FreeBSD 4.2 (and even 4.3) is quite buggy
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi I am currently working on implementing SACK on FreeBSD 4.3 (STABLE)
> . At some point in the future I plan to contribute this patch to the
> FreeBSD source tree (4.3 or later). I had a look at
> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO_8859-1/books/h
Thanks to all who responded. Luigi, I will also have a look at the code that you
posted. I did have a look at the code from the UCB Daedalus project, which was based
on the BSDI 2.0 code. I am currently basing most of my code changes on that work. The
changes broadly relate to the relatively n
Long ago (1996, sic!) i did some work on this, which you can find at
http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/sack.html
The retransmission logic probably need to be updated, also in relation
to the newer SACK RFC issued i think sometime last year. But the boring
part of the code which handles
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Hi
>I am currently working on implementing SACK on FreeBSD 4.3 (STABLE) . At
>some point in the future I plan to contribute this patch to the FreeBSD
>source tree (4.3 or later). I had a look at
>http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO_8859-1/books/handbook/c
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010613 18:31] wrote:
> Hi
> I am currently working on implementing SACK on FreeBSD 4.3 (STABLE) . At some point
>in the future I plan to contribute this patch to the FreeBSD source tree (4.3 or
>later). I had a look at
>http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.I
Hi
I am currently working on implementing SACK on FreeBSD 4.3 (STABLE) . At some point in
the future I plan to contribute this patch to the FreeBSD source tree (4.3 or later).
I had a look at
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO_8859-1/books/handbook/contrib.html .
With regards to the code con
I'm having some trouble with my wireless networking card in a
dell c600 notbook running FreeBSD. I have it initialized (it
has power) and it tries to transmit but doesn't receive
anything. When I ping the local machine's address, it gets an
answer which indicates to me that it recognizes some so
Hi -net folk...
Awhile back, I was trying to figure out how bridge(4) worked, but
discovered that the manpage didn't list all the sysctls necessary to
configure the bridge. I filed a PR (22060) asking someone to look into
this. I subsequently lost interest in bridge(4), but gained a commit
bit,
Hi all:
I am trying to make a kernel modification to add automatically
a Routing Header before send the packet.
I am using KAME kernel.
I have found the following structure in netinet6/ipv6_var.h:
/* Routing header related info */
struct ip6po_rhinfo {
struct ip6_rthdr *ip6po_rhi_rth
if I may bother you with my experience (of the moment!)
the most effective way was:
route add -inet6 bla:bla:bla:: -prefixlen 48 gateway -ifp xl0
then I can reach the Gateway + the subnets which the gateway routes to.
When I give only
route add -inet6 bla:bla:bla:: gateway
i can then reach o
Anastasia Leventi-Peetz escribió:
>
> I am trying to add a static route to the kernel tables
> and read the route Manpage to this purpose
>
> I've tried a lot but I get almost the same message:
> "bad address"
>
> what's wrong with the command?
>
> route add -inet6 bla.bla.bla::/48 -iface xl0
>> My this doubt is regarding automatic tunneling. I know that freeBSd doe=
>>snot support it. But i feel u can guide me in this.
>> Suppose iam implementing automatic tunneling then is there a need for m=
>>e to use any of the gif interfaces.
RFC1933/2893 automatic tunnelling is likely
My apologies, I didn't realize that the old code was broken.
Yes, ifr_flags is only valid in the SIOCGIFFLAGS context.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 08:40:35PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H?(B wrote:
> I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
> command:
> http://www.jp.Free
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 02:35:31PM +0200, Anastasia Leventi-Peetz thus sprach:
>
> I am trying to add a static route to the kernel tables
> and read the route Manpage to this purpose
>
> I've tried a lot but I get almost the same message:
> "bad address"
>
> what's wrong with the command?
> ro
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 01:50:39PM +0200, Juan Fco Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
> JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B escribio:
> >
> > I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
> > command:
> >
>http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1=1.49&r2=1.50
I am trying to add a static route to the kernel tables
and read the route Manpage to this purpose
I've tried a lot but I get almost the same message:
"bad address"
what's wrong with the command?
route add -inet6 bla.bla.bla::/48 -iface xl0
thanks a lot
Anastasia
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B escribió:
>
> I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
> command:
> http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1=1.49&r2=1.50
>
> In the commit log, the committer said
>
> Fixed the -iface breakage introduced wi
I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
command:
http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1=1.49&r2=1.50
In the commit log, the committer said
Fixed the -iface breakage introduced with the latest KAME merge
in revision 1.48. It is pretty
I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
command:
http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1=1.49&r2=1.50
In the commit log, the committer said
Fixed the -iface breakage introduced with the latest KAME merge
in revision 1.48. It is pretty
The automatic tunneling uses addresses of the form ::, so
if you detect that the destination is of this form, means that
the packet should be 'automatically' encapsulated.
Correct me if I am wrong.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Hi,
> My this doubt is regarding automatic tunneling. I know that
Hi,
My this doubt is regarding automatic tunneling. I know that freeBSd doesnot support
it. But i feel u can guide me in this.
Suppose iam implementing automatic tunneling then is there a need for me to use any of
the gif interfaces.
I feel that with the present freeBSD architecture i can impl
Hi,
Iam furnishin all the information requested by u.
1) My system version( output of uname -a)
FReeBSD 4.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE #19: Sat Jun 2 23:43:40 IST 2001
root@:/usr/src/sys/compile/PFXKERNEL i386.
2) Iam not presenly using the prefix command. Iam entering the prefixes in the
conf
Hi,
I just want to check if my understanding of the transition mechanisms in free bsd 4.2
implementation is correct.
Assume that a ipv6 packet has to travel through a ipv4 network to an ipv6 destination
host.
As usual the appropriate routing entry is found for the destination address &
nd6_out
25 matches
Mail list logo
