could anyone let me know why timersub/add/cmp are disabled in the
kernel? they were introduced in 4.4BSD, and (non-)availability of
these macro makes it difficult for kame/rrs to deal with multiple
*BSDs. (guessing: are you trying to enforce the use of timespec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks for your analysis Niranjan. Could you please elaborate on what
> you meant about the lcp.c patch not being the correct approach? I think
> Mike has tested it in multiple situations, and it has worked well for a
> guy in the same situation down here too.
>
> Hm, wasn't this accounted for in rev 1.174 / 1.107.2.31? From Matt's
> commit log:
True. My notes must have been from an older version. Sorry.
> Of course, that doesn't account for other non-zero strange values. I
> guess the timestamp code needs a lot of work. :(
This does suggest Ken is
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, CHOI Junho wrote:
> From: Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: mbuf tuning
> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:12:08 -0600 (CST)
>
> > There are no good guidelines other than "don't set it too high." Andre
> > and I have talked about some ideas on how to make mbuf usag
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garrett Wollman
> writes:
> >< said:
> >
> >> I'm considering ways to make sendmsg(2)/recvmsg(2) DTRT, and my
> >> current candidate is give them a flag bit which says "msg_name has
> >> both addresses".
> >
> >Um, th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bjo
ern A. Zeeb" writes:
>You mean for FreeBSD or in ISBN 0-13-490012-X ?
>
>For FreeBSD it is man 4 ip:
>
>--- cite ---
> If the IP_RECVDSTADDR option is enabled on a SOCK_DGRAM socket, the
> recvmsg(2) call will return the destination IP address for a UDP
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Garrett Wollman
writes:
>< said:
>
>> I'm considering ways to make sendmsg(2)/recvmsg(2) DTRT, and my
>> current candidate is give them a flag bit which says "msg_name has
>> both addresses".
>
>Um, they already do the right thing. That's what the IP_RECVDESTADDR
>
< said:
> I'm considering ways to make sendmsg(2)/recvmsg(2) DTRT, and my
> current candidate is give them a flag bit which says "msg_name has
> both addresses".
Um, they already do the right thing. That's what the IP_RECVDESTADDR
option (and its dual whose name I forget right now) is all about.
On Monday 19 January 2004 18:50, Dinesh Nair wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> > lines to the Internet: how would I use both? Could I just provide two
> > default routes? How? What algorithm would be used to choose among the
> > two? What if one failed?
>
> seems to be the top
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:50:57AM +0800, Dinesh Nair wrote:
> there was a multipath patch for 4-STABLE some months back, though for the
> life of me, i don't know where it's archived anymore.
Are you referring to these patches?
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2003-July/001843.
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
Serious problems
Non-critical problems
S Submitted Tracker Resp. Description
---
o [2003/07/11] kern/54383 net NFS root configurations without dynamic
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andrew Riabtsev wrote:
> DN> connecting the ng_iface hook inet to ng_ether's upper or lower doesnt make
> DN> any sense because ng_ether itself does not do an encasulation of the IP
> DN> packet into an ethernet frame. or am i wrong here, and just configuring it
> DN> wrongly
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> lines to the Internet: how would I use both? Could I just provide two
> default routes? How? What algorithm would be used to choose among the
> two? What if one failed?
seems to be the topic of the week over at freebsd-questions. short end of
the st
Ok, I asked already asked something similar to this in the past, but it's not the same
thing... maybe it's a trivial
question...
If I had two lines to the Internet: how would I use both?
Could I just provide two default routes? How?
What algorithm would be used to choose among the two?
What if one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
Short of actually fixing this LQR negotiation issue (?), might the
suggestion of a ppp.conf option to force LCP echo usage be good?
Yes. I am surprized it doesn't already have that option since thats
a more common scenario. Alternately you could use another ppp
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:52:24 -0500, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
>
>BTW, the lcp.c patch suggested by someone else is not the correct
>approach.
It would be great to see a proper config option disable it. However,
I dont see any such patches. In the mean time, it works for me.
Otherwis
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Randall R. Stewart (home)
" writes:
>>>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, 12:07+0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Simple question:
Very simple UDP server daemon.
Many clients (connect(2)'ing a socket for each is not an option)
Multihomed machine.
Hi all,
Monday, January 19, 2004, 12:34:25 PM, you wrote:
DN> hey all,
skiped
DN> i need some understanding on what exactly ng_iface achieves, as it makes a
DN> reference to the hook inet being connected to something. however,
DN> connecting the ng_iface hook inet to ng_ether's upper or lower
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Maxim Konovalov writes:
>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, 12:07+0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> Simple question:
>>
>> Very simple UDP server daemon.
>>
>> Many clients (connect(2)'ing a socket for each is not an option)
>>
>> Multihomed machine.
>>
>> What's the simple tric
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, 12:07+0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> Simple question:
>
> Very simple UDP server daemon.
>
> Many clients (connect(2)'ing a socket for each is not an option)
>
> Multihomed machine.
>
> What's the simple trick to replying with the same source-IP as the
> client used as desti
Simple question:
Very simple UDP server daemon.
Many clients (connect(2)'ing a socket for each is not an option)
Multihomed machine.
What's the simple trick to replying with the same source-IP as the
client used as destination-IP ?
Notice I said "simple", monitoring the routetable or polling
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, 19:22+0900, CHOI Junho wrote:
> From: Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: mbuf tuning
> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:12:08 -0600 (CST)
>
> > There are no good guidelines other than "don't set it too high." Andre
> > and I have talked about some ideas on how to mak
From: Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mbuf tuning
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:12:08 -0600 (CST)
> There are no good guidelines other than "don't set it too high." Andre
> and I have talked about some ideas on how to make mbuf usage more dynamic,
> I think that he has something in t
hey all,
am beginning to learn on how to manipulate netgraph nodes. i've read
archie cobbs' paper at http://www.daemonnews.org/23/netgraph.html and
it provided a good backgrounder on using netgraph. i'm now playing around
with ng_socket, ng_tee, ng_one2many and ng_iface to accomplish round
ro
Hi,
G> How much Mbytes/sec have you got with MPPE?
I get about 70-80 kbytes/s, while without encrytion the speed is 150-160
kbytes/s (and that's my hardware limit).
A friend of mine tested my configuration in a LAN and got no decrease in the
performance with encryption added. I am going to try to
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Richard Wendland wrote:
> I'd hazard a guess that you are seeing zero, not forged, TSECRs.
> Windows sets TSECR zero on SYN-ACK when it does a passive open. This is
> established Windows behaviour for several years, and there is a reading
> of RFC1323 that might justify this
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, CHOI Junho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is general guidelines of mbuf cluster tunables? I usually use
There are no good guidelines other than "don't set it too high." Andre
and I have talked about some ideas on how to make mbuf usage more dynamic,
I think that he has something in
27 matches
Mail list logo
