On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 07:10:28PM +0200, Roman Le Houelleur wrote:
> hi,
>
> > uname -a
> FreeBSD roman.fr.ipricot.com 4.3-STABLE FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE #0: \
> Tue Jul 3 17:28:04 CEST 2001 \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/ROMAN_SB i386
>
> I have only updated src-sys, the rest of t
I'm looking for some util that is simple to scotty but doesn't require
X11.
I need it to monitor my network (like sending some packets)
and making statistics or sending alarm signals when some host fails.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body o
On 3 Jul 2001 01:12:18 -0400, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you wrote:
>>
>>Same difference, ppp is implemented as a userland process, nearly the
>>same amount of work must be done for either natd or ppp.
>
>Well, I certainly can't get around needing NAT. Would it really add
On my 486 gateway, I
At 8:56 AM -0700 7/3/01, Julian Elischer wrote:
>you may be a good test case for us..
>we have heard of this negraph latency for a while but have never had a good
>test case.. if I send you test code can you run it for me?
Absolutely.
Bryan
--
Bryan Fullerton http://bryanfullerton
At 12:15 AM -0500 7/3/01, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>A boatload. :) ISA is _really_ slow. :)
Ok, I swapped in the PCI card, which turns out to be an fxp (Intel
Pro 10/100B/100+ Ethernet, according to dmesg), not 3com as I'd
thought.
I also removed an extra ISA card which wasn't doing anything,
At 2:31 AM +0200 7/4/01, Jesper Skriver wrote:
>You can't use that for measurement, on many router products the
>process of replying to ICMP echo's (and generating other ICMP
>messages) is a VERY low priority task, so if it's CPU is loaded
>with other tasks, you will see a excessive latency in pin
At 9:14 AM -0400 7/3/01, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>Well in the above instance I am the provider and I get different
>ping times at the different locations. [Just bringing this all up
>and only got one running late Wednesay night]. If you provider is
>not the lowest link in the chain, eg the telco
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 01:02:22AM -0400, Bryan Fullerton wrote:
> At 12:43 AM -0400 7/3/01, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
> >Since the first link to the DSL is not your system but the box
> >above it, I really suspect that is the problem.
>
> The pings that I provided were to the first hop, ie my ga
> I have only updated src-sys, the rest of the system comes from
> a 4.3 RC4.
Don't do this. The kernel has to match the userland, or things break. Routing,
ps, top and other things with intimate kernel<->userland interfaces are the
most likely to break.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
Hi Folks,
I just wanted to let you know the SMC wireless adapters are working in
4.3-STABLE. Make sure you load the latest - called linux - firmware into the
boards. The SMC2602W is a PCI to PCMCIA controller, dedicated for the
SMC2632W. I have my SMC2632W in my laptop running windoze2000. I am r
Juan Fco Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
>
> Dear all:
>
> I have the following problem: I would like to send an IPv6 packet using
> a given
> interface, to the address that corresponds to another interface of the
> same machine.
>
> This, that seems a bit akward, it would be interesting for obtainin
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 08:18:11PM +0200, Juan Fco Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
> I have the following problem: I would like to send an IPv6 packet using
> a given
> interface, to the address that corresponds to another interface of the
> same machine.
>
> This, that seems a bit akward, it would b
Dear all:
I have the following problem: I would like to send an IPv6 packet using
a given
interface, to the address that corresponds to another interface of the
same machine.
This, that seems a bit akward, it would be interesting for obtaining
accurate
packet latency results to test other sys
Hi:
Inside /usr/src/usr.bin/ftp/ftp.c:initconn(), I can not understand the
following piece of code:
My problem is with SO_REUSEADDR. The first time,
sendport = -1, so data_addr.su_port = 0 and SO_REUSEADDR
is not call. Then the port is send to the server.
If something goes wrong, sendport =0 &&
hi,
> uname -a
FreeBSD roman.fr.ipricot.com 4.3-STABLE FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE #0: \
Tue Jul 3 17:28:04 CEST 2001 \
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/ROMAN_SB i386
I have only updated src-sys, the rest of the system comes from
a 4.3 RC4.
> ifconfig -a
rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
inet
Hi there,
Current ipfw implementation doesn't allow for matching IP packets
by their precedence field while there exist real-life cases when
it would be a rather useful feature.
Please review the following patches against -current that add the
feature: ipfw.diff for the utility, ip_fw.diff for k
Bryan Fullerton 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 boxes (ie Linksys) on the same DSL provider.
Brooks Davis wrote:
>
> 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 card
I'm having some problems with a couple of PCMCIA ethernet card in
FreeBSD 4.3. First, a quick history of what I have done. I have 2 Vaio
laptop computers, a Cisco Aironet 340 series wireless card, and a LinkSys
10/100 PC Card (PCM100). I tested the LinkSys card in my laptop when I
first
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
>
[...]
> > You can't change host route to network route, or vise versa; destination
> > is the Patricia's tree key, and it can't be changed. The only possible
> > way is like I suggested: ``route add foo/32 -iface bar -cloning''.
>
Synopsis: getpeereid obtains credentials from connect()
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->freebsd-bugs
Responsible-Changed-By: ru
Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Jul 3 07:00:17 PDT 2001
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Experiment has failed. peter's script can't handle this.
It skips ^(freebsd|gn
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:34:14PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:30:48PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermil
> you are right, i meant among 100Mbit chips...
Can't we just mask the IRQ while in the IRQ handler so
we ignore more IRQ's? Then before we leave the IRQ handler
we check if there is any more packets via polling. The
number of packets that should be routed needs to be tunable,
as well as an up
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 03:34:14PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:30:48PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:40:07PM +03
>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 inte
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 01:02:22AM -0400, Bryan Fullerton thus sprach:
> 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 -
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:30:48PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:40:07PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Problem is that adding a route to
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:30:48PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:40:07PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> > >
> > > Problem is that adding a route to host throw interface adds
> > > inerface as gateway (iface's lladd
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:40:07PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
> >
> > 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
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001, Bryan Fullerton wrote:
> >Since the first link to the DSL is not your system but the box
> >above it, I really suspect that is the problem.
>
> The pings that I provided were to the first hop, ie my gateway at the
> other end of the connection. It could be latency in my provid
> > Some versions of the 21143 have a "interrupt mitigation" register
> > which acts more or less as the VMIN/VTIME termios fields.
> > But the 21143 is hard to find these days, and it is the
> > only one i know with this feature.
> Both the Alteon Tigon II (if_ti) and the National Semic
> Another way to do it is to switch/route multiple packets
> per interrupt. This is a solution a large router vendor
as long as you have hardware support for it...
The problem is that most devices give you an interrupt when you
get the first packet. If your CPU is fast, you are done before
the ne
> Some versions of the 21143 have a "interrupt mitigation" register
> which acts more or less as the VMIN/VTIME termios fields.
> But the 21143 is hard to find these days, and it is the
> only one i know with this feature.
Both the Alteon Tigon II (if_ti) and the National Semiconductor (
Another way to do it is to switch/route multiple packets
per interrupt. This is a solution a large router vendor
does...
-Anders
> 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.
I have a wireless basestation that translates ip packets using RC894
encapsulation into IEEE802.2/802.3 encapsulation (RFC1042).
Yes..I think that is gross too, but nevertheless I;d like to
get it to work.
THe host requirements RFC states that a host SHOULD be able to receive
RFC894 packets. Cur
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 05:40:07PM +0300, Iasen Kostoff wrote:
>
> 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 ba
36 matches
Mail list logo
