Re: Multilink server

2003-01-03 Thread Archie Cobbs
Jesús Martínez Mateo wrote: > I'm looking for a Multilink server to work with Linux, but I haven't found > nothing. Could you help me about that? Do you know if mpd works with Linux? Mpd does not work with Linux. It requires netgraph, which Linux doesn't have. -Archie __

Proper -current if_attach locking?

2003-01-03 Thread Nate Lawson
I was looking into some "could sleep messages" and found some bogus locking in the attach routine of many drivers. Several init a mtx in their softc and then lock/unlock it in their attach routine. This, of course, does nothing to provide exclusive access to a device. I assume there is going to

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

2003-01-03 Thread Eric Masson
> "Pekka" == Pekka Nikander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Pekka> Well, IMHO the best way would be to have a separate interface Pekka> for each tunnel end point. That would allow most fine grained Pekka> control, and would be easiest to understand. I was thinking of a virtual interface pour e

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

2003-01-03 Thread Brooks Davis
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 11:45:25AM +0200, Pekka Nikander wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > > loif[] is evil and its use should not be extended. In any case, NLOOP > > no longer exists in current since loopback interfaces are clonable. If > > you didn't want to adopt OpenBSD's enc interface, an alter

New OC3 ATM driver

2003-01-03 Thread Vincent Jardin
Prosum just releases an ATM driver for FreeBSD 3.x and 4.x It has some nice features: - CBR support - VBR support It supports the HARP stack. The last release of the driver is available on their web site: http://www.prosum.fr/atm155_E.html It works very well with the Prosum's OC3 board ;-

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

2003-01-03 Thread Lars Eggert
On 1/3/2003 2:04 AM, Pekka Nikander wrote: Well, IMHO the best way would be to have a separate interface for each tunnel end point. That would allow most fine grained control, and would be easiest to understand. Take a look at the draft-touch-ipsec-vpn-04.txt ID ; if you can use the approach

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

2003-01-03 Thread Paul Schenkeveld
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 01:36:28PM +0200, Pekka Nikander wrote: > Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > > Because of the way IPsec and ipfw/ipfilter interact, I've > > moved to the following workaround: > ... > > Now I use transport mode instead of tunnel mode between the two > > external IP addresses: > ... >

Re: Quad ethernet question

2003-01-03 Thread Nicolas Christin
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Nicolas Christin wrote: > If there is interest I can try to dig up the old email in which I was > describing the problem... Following is a more accurate description of the problem I saw with the card mentioned in this thread. I don't seem to have a printout of the available mb

Re: Quad ethernet question

2003-01-03 Thread Nicolas Christin
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Barry Irwin wrote: > kseel wrote: > > > Anyone using one of these? > > > > >http://www.corpsys.com/store/prodinfo.asp?number=ANA6944&variation=&aitem=60&mitem=62 > > If so, is the performance good? > > > I have a similar card ( also adaptec 4 port) in a number of firewalls. >

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

2003-01-03 Thread Pekka Nikander
Paul Schenkeveld wrote: Because of the way IPsec and ipfw/ipfilter interact, I've moved to the following workaround: ... Now I use transport mode instead of tunnel mode between the two external IP addresses: ... Although this is not the solution to your problem, it shows a behaviour close to w

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

2003-01-03 Thread Paul Schenkeveld
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:04:59PM +0200, Pekka Nikander wrote: > Eric Masson wrote: > > Seems pretty close to what OpenBSD has implemented, except they don't > > use the stock loopback interface. > > > > Their enc(4) driver is a software loopback interface : > > >http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/m

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

2003-01-03 Thread Pekka Nikander
Eric Masson wrote: Seems pretty close to what OpenBSD has implemented, except they don't use the stock loopback interface. Their enc(4) driver is a software loopback interface : http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=enc&sektion=4&arch=i386&apropos=0&manpath=OpenBSD+Current Thanks for the

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

2003-01-03 Thread Pekka Nikander
Brooks Davis wrote: loif[] is evil and its use should not be extended. In any case, NLOOP no longer exists in current since loopback interfaces are clonable. If you didn't want to adopt OpenBSD's enc interface, an alternate solution might be to set up an ioctl to allow you to register the interf

Re: Quad ethernet question

2003-01-03 Thread Barry Irwin
I have a similar card ( also adaptec 4 port) in a number of firewalls. FreeBSD uses the sf driver. Been running these for about 18 months with no hastles. Barry -- Barry Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]Tel: +27214875178 Systems Administrator: Networks And Security iTouch TAS