Re: MIB support for network devices in FreeBSD?

Andy Sparrow wrote: > But these stats don't seem to be collected for at least some network card > drivers, presumably because those drivers aren't collecting those stats, e.g. > they don't #include , and thus don't allocate a mib structure or > increment any counters in that structure. > > I can

Re: MIB support for network devices in FreeBSD?

On Sat, 2002-06-08 at 22:51, Andy Sparrow wrote: > > > I believe you can get this info if you add the net/snmp or net/snmp4 > > port. > > Hi Larry, > > Thanks for replying. > > Hmmm. I'm talking about code that uses a FreeBSD-specific sysctl to > interrogate the in-kernel if MIB counters, li

Re: MIB support for network devices in FreeBSD?

> I believe you can get this info if you add the net/snmp or net/snmp4 > port. Hi Larry, Thanks for replying. Hmmm. I'm talking about code that uses a FreeBSD-specific sysctl to interrogate the in-kernel if MIB counters, like this: /* gather stats */ int freebsd_sysctl_get(struct Devices*de

Re: MIB support for network devices in FreeBSD?

On Sat, 2002-06-08 at 22:01, Andy Sparrow wrote: > > Hi all, > > (pls Cc: me on any response, not subscribed to either list) > > Can't find any references to this in the archives. > > What's the status of MIB support for network interfaces in FreeBSD? Is it > deprecated, optional, "would be

MIB support for network devices in FreeBSD?

Hi all, (pls Cc: me on any response, not subscribed to either list) Can't find any references to this in the archives. What's the status of MIB support for network interfaces in FreeBSD? Is it deprecated, optional, "would be nice"? Reason for asking is that a dockapp I use has stopped displ

Re: m->m_pkthdr.header

I think there is almost no chance that a 4.x binary driver will run under 5.x On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, John Polstra wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'd like to get rid of this mbuf field "m->m_pkthdr.header". > [...] > > Any comments/objec

Re: host routes for interface addresses

This should be the full patch , but I'm not so sure :) I add ifconfig and net/rtsock.c fixes. I hope I don't miss something this time :) --- sys/net/if.cSun Apr 28 08:40:25 2002 +++ sys/net/if.my.c Sat Jun 8 20:52:12 2002 @@ -952,6 +952,7 @@ struct ifstat *ifs;

Re: host routes for interface addresses

Oooo...ppzzZ. I think I didn't sleep enough last night :P. But I found what I was looking for :). This is it line 950 of net/rtsock.c : ifm->ifm_flags = (u_short)ifp->if_flags | ifp->if_ipending; And I even try it - it works. But Im not sure if it will work in all cases... On Sat, 8 J

Re: host routes for interface addresses

On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:53:59 +0300 (EEST), Iasen Kostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is the patch. I'm now looking in the code to see where kernel > replays to the interface table requests. I hope there are not a lot > of places where it sets ifm_flags. [.] I think you forgot to add the

Re: host routes for interface addresses

Here is the patch. I'm now looking in the code to see where kernel replays to the interface table requests. I hope there are not a lot of places where it sets ifm_flags. > This certainly seems to make sense. Could you generate a patch and send > it to me ? I can test & commit it, and then may

Re: m->m_pkthdr.header

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While I agree that -STABLE is a more sensitive fish (which is partly > why I really don't enjoy dealing with it -- this argument always comes > up), I think that these types of changes absolutely need to go into >

Re: m->m_pkthdr.header

On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 09:16:06AM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'd like to get rid of this mbuf field "m->m_pkthdr.header". > [...] > > Any comments/objections? > > Yes, please bear in mind that if you change th

Re: host routes for interface addresses

This certainly seems to make sense. Could you generate a patch and send it to me ? I can test & commit it, and then maybe look at removing that horrible BOOTP hack :) I haven't looked at it yet, but it'll be worth testing that ifm_flags is populated correctly in routing socket messages... Than

Re: m->m_pkthdr.header

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to get rid of this mbuf field "m->m_pkthdr.header". [...] > Any comments/objections? Yes, please bear in mind that if you change the layout of the mbuf structures you will probably break binary compatibility wi

Re: host routes for interface addresses

On Sat, 8 Jun 2002, Brian Somers wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:27:46 +0300 (EEST), Iasen Kostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Iasen Kostov wrote: > > > > > > > > I think it's possible to use SIOCSIFCAP to tell the kernel not to set > > > host route via IFCAP_NORO

PC-based router characteristic

Hi, Does anybody know articles about measurement of router characteristics, especially PC-based routers? Best regards, Roman Kurakin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message

Re: host routes for interface addresses

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:27:46 +0300 (EEST), Iasen Kostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Iasen Kostov wrote: > > > > > I think it's possible to use SIOCSIFCAP to tell the kernel not to set > > host route via IFCAP_NOROUTE or something similar which will set > > IFCAP_NOROUT

Re: problems with ifconfig aliases

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:36:31 -0700 (PDT), "Joe T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Originally, I had created some aliases with the following command: > > # ifconfig dc0 alias 192.168.1.111 255.255.255.255 > # ifconfig dc0 alias 192.168.1.112 255.255.255.255 You forgot the netmask keyword.