Hi,
My ed0 interface has been set up using a typical LAN style IP address of
192.168.1.100.
When I run pppd (connecting to my ISP) with the defaultroute option, I
can't access services on my own ed0 IP address. Eg. "telnet 192.168.1.100
25" just hangs (instead of giving me the ESMTP prompt).
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:55:43 -0800
> "Crist J. Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
crist.clark> I was wondering if anyone here could explain this to me:
crist.clark> # DAD
crist.clark> ${fw6cmd} add pass ipv6-icmp from ff02::/16 to ::
crist.clark> ${fw6cmd} add pass ipv6-icmp from ::
I was wondering if anyone here could explain this to me:
# Only in rare cases do you want to change these rules
#
${fw6cmd} add 100 pass all from any to any via lo0
#
# ND
#
# DAD
${fw6cmd} add pass ipv6-icmp from ff02::/16 to ::
${fw6cmd} add pass ipv6-icmp from
Hi all,
Unrelated but for everybody unknown with mpd:
FYI:
DESCRIPTION
mpd is a user mode PPP daemon using the netgraph(4) networking system.
By using Netgraph, mpd combines the robustness and flexibility of a user-
mode PPP implementation with the speed and reliability of ker
what's NAT4?
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Juan Francisco Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
> Hello,
> I have been doing some perfomance tests using the standard NAT
> implementation for FreeBsd, and also using NAT-PT, with the KAME
> implementation.
>
> In throughput and delay terms, the results are much wors
Lars Eggert writes:
> If I take out the NAK patch, I believe I'll see kernel panics again; or
> were you saying that adding a host route can prevent this?
Adding a host route should prevent the kernel panic. However, there
was also a fix made to ng_ksocket(4) that eliminates the panic from
ever
Archie,
Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Newer versions of mpd will not even finish negotiation with a box
> that uses the same IP address inside & out... this was added as a
> safety check.. to disable this behavior and allow such negotiation,
> apply the patch below.
you put created that patch in repsons
Lars Eggert writes:
> How did you stop the Cisco box from stupidly trying to hand its own IP
> address to the clients over and over? I don't even get past negotiation,
> since the Cisco won't hand out any other addresses... (It also doesn't
> help that the box isn't under my direct administrati
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 07:24:09PM +0100, Marcel de Vries wrote:
> After 4 hours of pinging and listening to a shoutcast stream natd rised to
> his state of eating 34% proctime (top)
> Connection timed out, did a restart of mpd and everything is running normal
> agian.
somewhat unrelated, but..
After 4 hours of pinging and listening to a shoutcast stream natd rised to
his state of eating 34% proctime (top)
Connection timed out, did a restart of mpd and everything is running normal
agian.
Bugs me.
Grtz,
Marcel
At 15:40 19-02-2002 +, you wrote:
> i too am currently looking in
Justin,
glad this worked for you!
How did you stop the Cisco box from stupidly trying to hand its own IP
address to the clients over and over? I don't even get past negotiation,
since the Cisco won't hand out any other addresses... (It also doesn't
help that the box isn't under my direct admi
Justin Hawkins writes:
> > Unfortunately, there is no fix for this yet. However you can
> > try one trick, which is to set up a host route to the remote
> > IP address via your default gateway. I'm not sure if this will
> > work but it might (please report success/failure if you try it).
>
> Very
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:44:05PM -0800, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > The only real "cisco only" protocol is the PAgP (Port Aggregation
> > Protocol) which is essentially just a FEC auto-negiotation protocol they
> > made up. AFAIK noone other then Cisco actually implements this though.
>
> Don'
Ruslan Ermilov writes:
> > > Note that "normal" people will still get the standard configuration
> > > which prevents transmitting 127/8 packets, as it has for many years,
> > > without this new change.
> >
> > No, as I have had to repeat many times, a stock FreeBSD system did NOT
> > behave prop
i too am currently looking into natd - it seems to eat more cpu as the
number of connections it handles goes uip - not just the throughput.
- i'm not an expert but truss, strace and grof show that most of the time
is spent in sendto() ...
... i find this odd becuase recvfrom seems not to
Sirs,
Thank you for the clarification about 'no buffer space available' .
First of all I want to bring a new flavor of a test I did.
Switched back using natd again, used ping -s 4096 www.bart.nl and off
course a 128k/bits winamp stream from digitally imported ;-) to see what
will happen.
I wa
Hi
I found one problem. Current bpf interface allows to work only with
one link layer type
during interface life time, but some network drivers such as SPPP or
NETGRAPH support
many link layer types and link layer type could be changed during
interface life time.
I suggest to add new
I'm going to make a correction. The model of the card is not DWL-A520, but
DWL-520. In that case the question #2 is not more valid. I know it's answer.
Sorry for the mistake!
Vladimir
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:11:51 +0200
Vladimir Terziev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Hi,
I have a wireless PCI card D-Link DWL-A520. I haven't managed to find out any
information about the support of this card by FreeBSD.
1. Does FreeBSD support D-Link DWL-A520 cards and if the answer is 'yes', via
which driver?
2. The DWL-A520 card supports IE
Hello,
I have been doing some perfomance tests using the standard NAT
implementation for FreeBsd, and also using NAT-PT, with the KAME
implementation.
In throughput and delay terms, the results are much worse for NAT4.
May that result be due to the overloading introduced by ALG in the
standard
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Unfortunately, there is no fix for this yet. However you can
> try one trick, which is to set up a host route to the remote
> IP address via your default gateway. I'm not sure if this will
> work but it might (please report success/failure if you try it)
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:25:13AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:35:54PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote:
[snip]
> > I'd personally prefer someone just fix lo0 so that,
> >
> > $ ifconfig lo0 inet 127.0.0.1
> >
> > Actually added the route,
> >
> > 127
On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Zviratko wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>
> I will try that, but I guess default route has precedence over ipfw.
Not in the case of ipfw fwd. The routing decision seems to be
made before ipfw fwd changes the packet.
Nick Rogness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Don't mind me...I
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:35:54PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 08:43:45PM -0800, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> > Crist J. Clark writes:
> > > No, RFC1122 is a set of requirements for hosts implementing _the
> > > Internet protocol._
> >
> > OK...
> >
> > > > By your argument,
24 matches
Mail list logo
