< said:
> - You mention moving if_flags to the first element, is there any code
> that assumes that if_softc is the first element in the ifnet? Putting
> at the start of the second cache line might be another option.
There shouldn't be; if_softc is a recent invention, and should by
ri
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
>Hi,
>in order to add polling support to network interfaces
>i need to add one more flag to network interface descriptors,
>but the relevant field in struct ifnet (if_flags) is only 16 bit
>wide and already fully used.
>
>I would like to extend it to 32 b
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Marko Zec wrote:
> The microcode should work on many revisions - if not all - of
> Intel 8255* chipset, but the BSD driver is currently tested only
> on 82558-B0, so I would really appreciate any feedback on driver
> functionality/stability on other chipset revisions.
Chalk
Mike Silbersack wrote:
> That being said, I thought I should check on one thing: In your original
> post, you mentioned that these techniques came from the linux drive for
> these cards. In the process of writing this patch, did you copy any
> section of code from the Linux driver? If possibl
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Marko Zec wrote:
> An updated fxp driver patch for bundling receive interrupts, thus saving
> a noticeable amount of CPU overhead for interrupt processing, can be
> found at http://www.tel.fer.hr/zec/BSD/fxp/. New features include:
I haven't reviewed the code and don't have
I am not an official FreeBSD commiter, so I can't tell really...
Therefore jlemon was in cc: (he is the fxp driver maintainer), so it is
his call.
Nevertheless, I think this patch needs a little bit more testing - there
are many 8255* chipset revisions out there, and as the code is *very*
chipset
An updated fxp driver patch for bundling receive interrupts, thus saving
a noticeable amount of CPU overhead for interrupt processing, can be
found at http://www.tel.fer.hr/zec/BSD/fxp/. New features include:
- control of microcode parameters through sysctl variables
- activation/deactivation of m
"John Polstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Cyrille Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Polstra wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the reason you think it would be better to put the solution
> > > into dhclient-enter-hooks?
> >
> > IMHO, for instance, because thi
Alan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:14:54AM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
>
>>After a long time looking into this, I have finally understood what's
>>the problem. RTM_NEWADDR is generated sometimes yes, sometimes no. I
>>have absolutely no idea what makes the difference, particularly bec
i have the follow problem:
i use etinc in one FreeBSD box (4.2). it works fine.
this freebsd make bridge (one interface in switch), and another cross
over to router. in the conection to router, there are one colision led,
that are almost always up! i did put one rule for bridge only ip in rl0
(s
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:14:54AM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> After a long time looking into this, I have finally understood what's
> the problem. RTM_NEWADDR is generated sometimes yes, sometimes no. I
> have absolutely no idea what makes the difference, particularly because
> I have abs
Hi,
some info about the machine:
vpn-gw2# uname -a
FreeBSD vpn-gw2 4.4-STABLE FreeBSD 4.4-STABLE #2: Tue Oct 16 16:42:27
CEST 2001 root@vpn-gw2:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VPN-GW2 i386
vpn-gw2#
The machine is a dual 700MHz PIII with 512MB ram and 3 3c905B nics.
/etc/sysctl.conf looks like this:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:13:52AM -0700, John Polstra wrote:
> Not quite. It's not the "PXE level," it's the normal operating state
> of the system. The only difference is that it was booted with PXE
> instead of by some other means. PXE booting is being used more and
> more at large install
I can obtain two seperate IP addresses and everything routes OK for both
interfaces. Its just these ARP messages that are annoying me (filling up
my logs with repeated messages).
I'm having a problem with ARP's from my gateway. Both interfaces use the
same gateway, but I get an error message
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Cyrille Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Polstra wrote:
> >
> > What is the reason you think it would be better to put the solution
> > into dhclient-enter-hooks?
>
> IMHO, for instance, because this hack is only needed at PXE level
> not after, I am rig
After a long time looking into this, I have finally understood what's
the problem. RTM_NEWADDR is generated sometimes yes, sometimes no. I
have absolutely no idea what makes the difference, particularly because
I have absolutely no idea where the relevant code portions is located.
As for my en
think that *if* your ISP is cooperative enough, he can create routing rules saying
that your ip-public can be found behind their's own. Also he can make an aliases (YOUR
public in THEIR's machine), and a ipfilter/ipw rule saying that 'any request shoud be
redirected to YOUR private address'
A
> Hi Brian,
>
> thanks alot for your info.. I can assigned IPv6 address using ppp.conf like you
>showed me.
>
> However, when ppp was started using ppp -auto, tun0 appears and
> you can see the assigned IPv6 address on tun0. But when the connection
> is established with the peer, tun1 appea
On Wed 2001-10-24 (09:28), Olivier Cherrier wrote:
>
> PPTP is itself insecure against SSH or IPSEC...
> MPD is a great application. Using MPD is as secure as
> PPTP is! :)
>
slightly off topic form the original question, but PPTP works rather well
over IPSEc, infact iirc win2k will attempt to
>Is it possible to authenticate users on /etc/master.passwd or
>by some other
>method possibly RADIUS or an SQL table? storing the usernames
>and passwords
>in the mpd.secret file is redundant and insecure IMHO.
>
>Ryan
>
PPTP is itself insecure against SSH or IPSEC...
MPD is a great applicati
20 matches
Mail list logo
