At 12:15 AM -0500 7/3/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>* Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010703 00:12] wrote:
> > Ok, I'll try that tomorrow then. Perhaps the varying cruft levels in
>> ed(4) vs xl(4), or ISA vs PCI architecture, will help. :)
>
>A boatload. :) ISA is _really_ slow. :)
Hmm, k
* Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010703 00:12] wrote:
> At 11:54 PM -0500 7/2/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > If you really think switching to a better ethernet card will help, I
> > > have a 3C905B sitting here that I can try.
> >
> >It may.
>
> Ok, I'll try that tomorrow then. Perhaps
At 11:54 PM -0500 7/2/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > If you really think switching to a better ethernet card will help, I
> > have a 3C905B sitting here that I can try.
>
>It may.
Ok, I'll try that tomorrow then. Perhaps the varying cruft levels in
ed(4) vs xl(4), or ISA vs PCI architecture,
At 12:43 AM -0400 7/3/01, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>The only way to be sure it is OS related [and I suspect it is not]
>is to take your machine to their location. DSL can vary in speed
>from location to location.
Ah - here I should mention that I had similar ping times with this
same provider whe
* Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010702 23:50] wrote:
> At 11:36 PM -0500 7/2/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> >Without a real idea of what's in the dedicated equipment it's hard
> >to say. A couple things about your configuration really say
> >"low-end" equipment, especially the NIC being
At 11:36 PM -0500 7/2/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
>Without a real idea of what's in the dedicated equipment it's hard
>to say. A couple things about your configuration really say
>"low-end" equipment, especially the NIC being used.
It's absolutely not high-end stuff, but this is only a residen
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 12:09:14AM -0400, Bryan Fullerton thus sprach:
> I've been wondering why the latency is higher in FreeBSD's PPPoE
> implementation. From what I've seen, ping times via my gateway box
> are significantly higher than what friends are seeing with dedicated
> router boxes (
* Bryan Fullerton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010702 23:11] wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I've been wondering why the latency is higher in FreeBSD's PPPoE
> implementation. From what I've seen, ping times via my gateway box
> are significantly higher than what friends are seeing with dedicated
> router boxe
Howdy,
I've been wondering why the latency is higher in FreeBSD's PPPoE
implementation. From what I've seen, ping times via my gateway box
are significantly higher than what friends are seeing with dedicated
router boxes (ie Linksys) on the same DSL provider.
Here's what I'm seeing to the ot
Cambria, Mike wrote:
> I can only find a way to define a global SPD using setkey. Is it possible
> to define an (IPv4) SPD on a per interface basis using KAME / FreeBSD4?
Don't your interfaces have different source addresses that you can match on?
Lars
--
Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Glenn Johnson wrote:
> I just tested this and it looks fine to me. It gets the sample code in
> PR misc/27880 working and more importantly it gets PBS (Portable Batch
> System) working again. Once this is merged into 4.3-STABLE I will send
> a message to the pbs mail list t
>I can only find a way to define a global SPD using setkey. Is it possible
>to define an (IPv4) SPD on a per interface basis using KAME / FreeBSD4?
>If not, are there any plans to add this in the future?
>Is there any reason one wouldn't want to have this?
no. do you want SPD per interf
> > one of them is the (relatively high) interrupt overhead
...
> Interesting. We've been working on the Lazy Receiver Processing
> approach (http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/Systems/LRP) to this problem
> in combination with polling after processing as suggested by Mogul's
> paper. As I understand i
> one of them is the (relatively high) interrupt overhead
> as reported by many. There is a good description of the problem
> in the Click's paper at http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/click/ and
> in the Mogul's paper referenced in there.
> The advantage of this approach is that you don't hav
>
> > a stock freebsd system can't do more than 20K ~ 100K pkts/second due to
> > many bottlenecks
>
> I'd be interested in knowing where those bottlenecks were and fixing them.
one of them is the (relatively high) interrupt overhead,
as reported by many. There is a good description of the
I can only find a way to define a global SPD using setkey. Is it possible
to define an (IPv4) SPD on a per interface basis using KAME / FreeBSD4?
If not, are there any plans to add this in the future?
Is there any reason one wouldn't want to have this?
Thanks,
MikeC
To Unsubscribe: send ma
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 09:45:47PM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>
> > I don't object; while the security provided by the new scheme is
> > nice, breaking TIME_WAIT assassination is a serious bug in some
> > environments, and there should be a way to w
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:15:21 -0700,
> "Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I don't have any objection to changing the default interface to a
>> non-loopback one, *if the default is ever defined*. I'm arguing that
>> it would be safe *not to specify the default interface by def
> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:27:26 +0900
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:28:54 -0700,
> > "Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> That is, if we do not have any default
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:37:16AM +0300, Vladimir Terziev wrote:
> I'm planning to setup a Intranet network, based on wireless connections. I
> think to use Cisco Aironet 340 Series cards for client access.
>
> Is FreeBSD supports Cisco Aironet 340 Series cards ?
They work quite well. Jus
I'm ADSL subscriber, and using ppp(8) to PPPoE to my ISP. I'm also
want to get a IPv6 tunnel for my home network, but I find that ppp(8)
does filter-out my IPv6 tunneling packet by implicit ruleset.
This is because ppp(8) does filter out if not specified, and there is
no way to specify ipv6 tunn
Problem is that adding a route to host throw interface adds
inerface as gateway (iface's lladdr). And you should manualy change lladdr
of this route to the real lladdr.
this is it:
route add -host foo -iface bar
arp -s foo real_lladdr_of_foo
Is that realy a problem or I'm missing somet
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:34:40PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:16:19PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermil
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 04:34:40PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:16:19PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:49:44PM +03
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:16:19PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:49:44PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermil
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:16:19PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:49:44PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:15:56PM -06
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:15:56PM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, Wes, I'm still waiting for a working example of an indirect route
> > > with also indirect gateway.
> >
> > Any indirect route via the opposite en
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:15:56PM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > BTW, Wes, I'm still waiting for a working example of an indirect route
> > with also indirect gateway.
>
> Any indirect route via the opposite end of a point-to-point connection.
> Right?
>
You probabl
Hi all,
I'm planning to setup a Intranet network, based on wireless connections. I
think to use Cisco Aironet 340 Series cards for client access.
Is FreeBSD supports Cisco Aironet 340 Series cards ?
regards,
Vladimir
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "un
29 matches
Mail list logo
