Andre Oppermann wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
G'day,
Since my ADSL connection was moved at my ISP's end from one set of
equipment (norte shasta?) to another (unisphere?), I've been having
problems with my PPPoE sessions.
With "enable lqr" in my ppp.conf, the connection terminates after a few
m
I tried emailing the owner of ppp but got no response.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/11293
Seems to indicate others have run into this as well. I can confirm
that here in Canada, FreeBSD's ppp is indeed broken when connecting to
Juniper's ERX as part of a PPPoE session. I wo
Hello everybody,
I just built and installed a new world and kernel on a sparc64, and
unfortunately ip6fw no longer seems to work correctly.
The box runs an IPv6-enabled Apache server. With the previous kernel (Sun
Jan 11 14:03:52 CET 2004), I could access that Apache server without any
problems f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> G'day,
>
> Since my ADSL connection was moved at my ISP's end from one set of
> equipment (norte shasta?) to another (unisphere?), I've been having
> problems with my PPPoE sessions.
>
> With "enable lqr" in my ppp.conf, the connection terminates after a few
> mintu
G'day,
Since my ADSL connection was moved at my ISP's end from one set of
equipment (norte shasta?) to another (unisphere?), I've been having
problems with my PPPoE sessions.
With "enable lqr" in my ppp.conf, the connection terminates after a few
mintues with "Too many LQR packets lost". I'v
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > Besides that i'd like to add that FreeBSD has the fastest forwarding engine
> > i've seen on any free OS. It's in my opinion a very suitable OS for
> > routing/forwarding.
>
> We are working on it to make it even faster. If you are using 5.2 or
>
Hi again,
> I am missing something here or are there problems with this
> interface? Do i need to force a mode (full/half duplex *shrug*)?
> The switch is working (unfortunally my partner is using m$ and
> its working there ...).
ok its done. I needed to force the interface on 100baseTX.
bensons
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 06:09:07PM +0200, Emil Filipov wrote:
E> OK, I have patched (commented) the MRU problem. Now I'm able to successfully
E> connect to the server. But guess what happens when I connect with mppe? I
E> get about half the speed compared to connection without encryption..
E> Top s
Xin LI wrote:
>
> Hi Andre,
>
> Thank you for the information.
>
> I have a NAT gateway running with the following ipnat.rules:
>
> ---
> map fxp0 172.22.1.0/24 -> 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port ftp ftp/tcp
> map fxp0 172.22.1.0/24 -> 0
Hi Andre,
Thank you for the information.
I have a NAT gateway running with the following ipnat.rules:
---
map fxp0 172.22.1.0/24 -> 0.0.0.0/32 proxy port ftp ftp/tcp
map fxp0 172.22.1.0/24 -> 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp 1025:7999
Xin LI wrote:
>
> As title. To my imagination (I have taken a sight on the kernel networking
> code), the fastforwarding path is intended for routers only, so if I want
> some functionalities, for example, NAT, the fastforwarding is not useful,
> and my experiment shows that if I enable it, ipfilt
Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
>
> Apologies for the cross-post, i wasnt sure if this was hackers or net material.
>
> I've often wondered why ip checksumming is done on every incoming
> packet and not only on the packets that need to be delivered locally.
Only the IP header checksum is checked. We
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 12:17:48PM +0800, Xin LI wrote:
> As title. To my imagination (I have taken a sight on the kernel networking
> code), the fastforwarding path is intended for routers only, so if I want
> some functionalities, for example, NAT, the fastforwarding is not useful,
> and my exper
13 matches
Mail list logo
