I'm having a weird ipnat/ipf problem. I think its more ipnat related then
ipf.
First, the ipf rules :
# block anything to our netblock but allow further processing
block in on fxp0 from any to 64.74.133.224/27
block in on fxp0 from any to 192.168.0.0/16
# allow everything out and keep state
pass
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:43:32PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 29 June 2004 15:40, Xin LI wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:13:38PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> > > It seems to me that RANDOM_IP_ID might be better as a sysctl rather
> > > than a kernel option. Would anyone mind if I
Max Laier wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 29 June 2004 15:40, Xin LI wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:13:38PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> > > It seems to me that RANDOM_IP_ID might be better as a sysctl rather
> > > than a kernel option. Would anyone mind if I changed this?
>
> I personally think tha
Hi,
I got tired of dracd's RPC business too. I use ports/mail/pop-before-smtp
now, works fine for me.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:41:09AM -0400, Tony Holmes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm attempting to set up jails in a 4.9S environment using the newer
> rpc versions of dracd. I'm encountering no ends of t
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:13:38PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> > > It seems to me that RANDOM_IP_ID might be better as a sysctl rather
> > > than a kernel option. Would anyone mind if I changed this?
> I personally think that RANDOM_IP_ID is something that should be tweakable on
> a per-inter
David Malone wrote:
>
> It seems to me that RANDOM_IP_ID might be better as a sysctl rather
> than a kernel option. Would anyone mind if I changed this?
No, but make sure that when the sysctl is disabled that no overhead
with random ip_id creation/stepping is incured.
--
Andre
_
On Tuesday 29 June 2004 15:40, Xin LI wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:13:38PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> > It seems to me that RANDOM_IP_ID might be better as a sysctl rather
> > than a kernel option. Would anyone mind if I changed this?
I personally think that RANDOM_IP_ID is something that
Hi,
I'm attempting to set up jails in a 4.9S environment using the newer
rpc versions of dracd. I'm encountering no ends of trouble.
What I'd like is individual instances of rpc.dracd running to control
each jail individually (each is it's own domain).
Using the -h flags to portmap, i still get
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:13:38PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> It seems to me that RANDOM_IP_ID might be better as a sysctl rather
> than a kernel option. Would anyone mind if I changed this?
Wouldn't this cause a performance penality? IIRC htons() is currently
a macro which is essentially a no-o
It seems to me that RANDOM_IP_ID might be better as a sysctl rather
than a kernel option. Would anyone mind if I changed this?
David.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send an
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 Donatas_G./[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we have HE155 Series ForeRunner adapters used with intel rack systems.
hatm0 driver is not supported by harp, so in order to use atm interfaces,
we've decided to configure hetgraph interfaces (ng) on FreeBsd 5.2.1
You CAN use hatm with harp. J
we have HE155 Series ForeRunner adapters used with intel rack systems.
hatm0 driver is not supported by harp, so in order to use atm interfaces,
we've decided to configure hetgraph interfaces (ng) on FreeBsd 5.2.1
interfaces are needed to split common internet flow to the national and
world fl
I have read several documents on the number of
concurrent https sessions a FreeBSD system is capable
of.
However, I wonder how well this relates to how many
ssh sessions (scp file transfers, specifically) that a
FreeBSD server can handle. Can anyone throw out some
basic numbers for this ? Assum
13 matches
Mail list logo
