On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:18:41PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I don't believe so. We pay for a leased connection - so it's not supposed to
> be filtered. I'll have a dig around tho. One other question, is their any
> way to statically map an IP to a MAC (user who keeps chainging their IP when
> t
I don't believe so. We pay for a leased connection - so it's not supposed to
be filtered. I'll have a dig around tho. One other question, is their any
way to statically map an IP to a MAC (user who keeps chainging their IP when
they shouldn't), but prevent them associating the MAC with any other IP
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:03:27AM +0200, jakae wrote:
> I have a freebsd box which is connected to two different networks
> (public and private). I would like to give to somebody a shell account
> on this box, but allow him just to see, trace,.. the public network. The
> best would be if he co
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 06:39:12PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> / 33104 broadcast/multicast datagrams dropped due to no socket " which seems an
> inordinatly high amount. There are no drops due to full socket buffers, although I
> have recompiled the kernel with nmbclusters=8192 and Maxusers=10
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:54:12AM +0200, Juan Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
> [snipped]
> gre0: flags=b051 mtu 1476
> inet 192.168.1.1 --> 192.168.2.1 netmask 0xff00
> inet6 fe80::2c0:26ff:fea3:5df6%gre0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
>
>
> Besides, I think that every interface already
You probably need to install a service to the "internet background
radiation" ports.
Look at the "samba" port, it´ll receive packets on the ports most
virused microsoft
clients send to random destination addresses.
Pete
Colin Watson wrote:
Hi, I've got a rather strange issue with UDP loss (at
Hi, I've got a rather strange issue with UDP loss (at least I think it is) on my
network, and frankly - I'm not sure it's me (think it might be the upstream providers
stuff). Basically, the situation is this, FreeBSD 4.8 box connects to the upstream
provider, and another one at another location
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:47:22PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>
> I've been reading a little about TCP Segmentation Offload (aka TSO).
> We don't appear to support it, but at least 2 of our supported nics
> (e1000 and bge) apparently could support it.
i believe there is more commercial hype th
Since it seems that tcpdump people are more or less gone, is it still
too much to ask
that the broken code in src/contrib/libpcap/pcap-bpf.c starting from
line 236
which breaks the bufsize would be removed from the FreeBSD repository?
Obviously the option is to fix the code but that´s much more
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:03:27AM +0200, jakae wrote:
> (public and private). I would like to give to somebody a shell account
> on this box, but allow him just to see, trace,.. the public network. The
> best would be if he could not even see that this box is connected to
> some private netwo
jakae wrote:
Hello,
I am wondering if there is a way for rejecting some system (shell
account) users to access some networks and hosts.
I wonder if the network virtualization patch would do it, if I remember
correctly, it has
separate interfaces for processes. Look in the list archives and see
Hello,
I am wondering if there is a way for rejecting some system (shell
account) users to access some networks and hosts.
For example:
I have a freebsd box which is connected to two different networks
(public and private). I would like to give to somebody a shell account
on this box, but allo
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Paolo Pisati wrote:
>
> Like the subjects says,
>
> I think it would be nice to reserve a couple of names (like
> ng_cust1 & ng_cust2) for user developed netgraph nodes (something
> like unix did with major&minor numbers of device).
>
> With a couple of spare nodes it woul
13 matches
Mail list logo
