Hi,
If you want sync/async cards look at:
http://www.cronyx.ru/hardware/sigma22.html
http://www.cronyx.ru/hardware/taupci.html
Best regards,
Roman Kurakin
John Hay wrote:
>>
>>is the moxa c101/isa (HD64570) supersync board supported?
>>
>
>I don't know if there is
If I understand it correctly, all I need to do on a network host is set
ipv6_enable="YES"
and the rest is done automagically.
net.inet6.forwarding=0
net.inet6.accept_rtadv=1
rtsol
are all set automatically from the rc.network6 startup ?
Do I have to have this set? or is it all done for the ho
Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> I'd like to hear how to do it the proper way though. Feel like clueing
> me in?
Check the KAME newsletters (e.g.
http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20001119/) for configuration examples.
There are also some examples in the IMPLEMENTATION and USAGE files under
CVS (we
At 14:20 8-4-2002 -0700, Lars Eggert wrote:
>There are no IPsec tunnel devices in KAME. IPsec defines "security
>associations" (SAs), which are not represented as devices in the routing
>table in KAME. Thus, you can't use routes to direct traffic into these
>tunnel mode SAs, you need to set up you
Julian Elischer wrote:
> Assign the required address to the netgraph interface and then
> use the IP-over-UDP example in the netgraph examples.
Good idea. IP-over-UDP has advantages when it comes to firewall- and
NAT-traversal. IP-over-IP has the advantage that it looks like IPsec
tunnel mode
you can do another form of tunnelling by using
a netgraph interface.
Assign the required address to the netgraph interface and then
use the IP-over-UDP example in the netgraph examples.
tehn set up teh security associations so that the UDP packets
generated are encrypted.. this is basically th
Dennis Pedersen wrote:
> Because on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lars Eggert said something about using
> transport mode, not tunnel mode. This confused me a bit because isnt
> transport between 2 hosts only
I said a possibility would be to use IPsec transport mode OVER AN IPIP
TUNNEL, which is not he
Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
>> http://www.x-itec.de/projects/tuts/ipsec-howto.txt
>
> Unfortunately this howto, like any other mention of IPsec &
> tunneling on the net uses the gif interface. Which is IPoverIP, and
> this does not seem to match with IPsec tunnel devices.
There are no IPsec
- Original Message -
From: "Rogier R. Mulhuijzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 8:04 PM
Subject: IPsec tunnel mode
> I've been following the KAME vs. OpenBSD IPsec thread somewhat, and I
> gather that IPsec tunnel mode is not the same as using t
hi,
I am using on FreeBSD 4.5 the application
NETPERF to do TCP/UDP benchmark !
can someone give me the general relation
between the TCP/IP WINDOW SIZE and RECEIVE/SEND
socket size doing a TCP_STREAM test ?
setting for example an Received socket size of
5000 byte means t
I put together a patch that adds option 60 to the FreeBSD kernel BOOTP code.
I fill in the vendor indentifier string as:
::
partially based on how NetBSD does it. However, NetBSD uses this format:
::kernel:
I wonder how usefull the "kernel" part is. Should we just do it to
follow
At 13:07 8-4-2002 -0500, Matthew wrote:
>check out this link... they were a great deal of help to me when i went
>to setup ipsec on freebsd...
>
>Best wishes
> Hytekblue
>
>http://www.x-itec.de/projects/tuts/ipsec-howto.txt
Unfortunately this howto, like any other mention of IPsec & tu
check out this link... they were a great deal of help to me when i went
to setup ipsec on freebsd...
Best wishes
Hytekblue
http://www.x-itec.de/projects/tuts/ipsec-howto.txt
> At 20:04 8-4-2002 +0200, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> >My question is, can one get IPsec tunnel mode to wo
Hi,
Thanks a lot to all those who replied on and off the list! The
winner is Andrew R. Reiter . Here is a
possible solution to the problem, inspired by his response:
ifconfig fxp1 fxp1_IP netmask 255.255.255.255
ifconfig fxp2 fxp2_IP netmask 255.255.255.255
route
At 20:04 8-4-2002 +0200, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
>My question is, can one get IPsec tunnel mode to work in BSD, and how is
>it done? I do not need a lengthy story, a few terse pointers would be
>quite enough.
Pardon me. I meant FreeBSD not BSD.
Doc
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [
I've been following the KAME vs. OpenBSD IPsec thread somewhat, and I
gather that IPsec tunnel mode is not the same as using the gif interface
(which is IPIP).
My question is, can one get IPsec tunnel mode to work in BSD, and how is it
done? I do not need a lengthy story, a few terse pointers
>
> is the moxa c101/isa (HD64570) supersync board supported?
I don't know if there is a driver for the card, but there are 2 drivers
that drive cards based on the HD64570 chip. They are ar(4) and sr(4).
Maybe one of them are close enough or if you can get info on the card,
maybe one of them c
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:25:33PM -0500, Nick Rogness wrote:
> >
[SNIP]
> >
> > AFAIK, the route to get from 1 interface to the other is not
> > through the lo0. I'm not sure if the kernel sends these packets
> > across lo0 (internally) or not. Bu
Thanks,
that's what I needed to know.
Regards
Robert
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:00:21 +1000,
> > "Merlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > If I have two hosts on the same network, 2002:cb01:6006:: then they would be
>numbered thus - have I got it right?
> > ruby IN
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:00:21 +1000,
> "Merlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If I have two hosts on the same network, 2002:cb01:6006:: then they would be
>numbered thus - have I got it right?
> ruby IN 2002:cb01:6006::1
> nanguo IN 2002:cb0
If I have two hosts on the same network, 2002:cb01:6006:: then they would be numbered
thus - have I got it right?
ruby IN 2002:cb01:6006::1
nanguo IN 2002:cb01:6006::2
$ifconfig
ed0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
inet 203.1.96.6 netmask 0xff00
21 matches
Mail list logo
