On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> = I'm glad you've hit upon a solution that is acceptable. How 'bout
> = writing it up for one of the online magazines? (Hint hint: Daemon
> = News, for instance. ;^) It'll be good practice for writing the BSDCon
> = paper you want to do as well, won't
I don't know if this is the right list to ask this question. But, this
problem is vital to me as I could not connect to Internet and work at
all... PLEASE HELP!! Thank you!
--
Cheers, Peter
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Se
Thomas Gielfeldt wrote:
> > > W2K and WXP can use IPSec, but it still uses PPP as far as I remember.
> >
> > But does Windows PPP support PPP bridging? I didn't think so.
>
> I believe that is irrelevant. The tun-device simulates two nics connected as
> far as I understand. Only the endpoint on th
> > >Instead of using MPD, it might be simpler to bridge via UDP packets.
> > >E.g. combine ng_bridge with ng_ksocket. You could secure this via
IPSec.
> >
> > Okay, thanks. But won't I still have to use MPD? You see the reason I'm
> > using MPD in the first place is to connect a windows client. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi...
Ive tried to get my Level-One "WPC-0100" Wireless pcmcia card to work on my
freebsd(4.7) box, compiled the kernel with:
device awi
device an
device ray
device wi
But it still dont show up in the booting process or ifco
Thomas wrote:
> >Instead of using MPD, it might be simpler to bridge via UDP packets.
> >E.g. combine ng_bridge with ng_ksocket. You could secure this via IPSec.
>
> Okay, thanks. But won't I still have to use MPD? You see the reason I'm
> using MPD in the first place is to connect a windows clie
Hi,
I'm using two FreeBSD machines in an small switched network. One of them
blows out tcp packets as fast as possible for five seconds. The other
machine just receives the packets and does nothing else.
What I see is that for short packets the senders CPU load is just 100
percent, but for large
