-- In Response to your message -
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:29:44 +0100
> To: "J. W. Ballantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Guido van Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:07:26PM -0500
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:07:26PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> Quite frankly, blunt is not a problem, one needs to call them as one sees
> them. However, responding to a question with a condesending, superior
> attitude(IMHO), while ignoring the question is. As for "just try what
> people
-- In Response to your message -
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:11:40 +0100
> To: "J. W. Ballantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Guido van Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, Ma
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:51:46AM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> So what you are saying is that with the:
>route add -net default -iface -interface xl0
> command the system thinks there is a direct connect. Doesn't this
> then send all packets out, since there is no address supplied with
>
So what you are saying is that with the:
route add -net default -iface -interface xl0
command the system thinks there is a direct connect. Doesn't this
then send all packets out, since there is no address supplied with
the route command, or is this a function the the 10.*.*.* addresses
are priv
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:34:18PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
>round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.022/3.428/5.029/0.801 ms
># ping 207.172.3.8<<< one of isp's name server
>PING 207.172.3.8 (207.172.3.8): 56 data bytes
>ping: sendto: Host is down
>p
Hi all,
the following problem occured just to me. Suppose the last lines in
my attach() function look something like:
if_attach(...)
bus_setup_intr(...)
Last time we had the locking discussion it was more or less the concensus,
that no locking is needed in attach() and that the
