Hi,
I am using freebsd 4.9 as a bandwidth manager. I would like to set IP TOS
field to some desired value or is it possible to completely ignore the TOS
value?
I have observed that using different value of TOS affects fairness in b/w
allocation in a pipe. So for that specific reason I
'k, did someone fix something with the em driver? :( Figuring it couldn't
hurt to try auto-neg once more, and so far, 0 Ierrs :( So either someone
fixed the em problem, or the em problem was transient ... but it was
originally the default (autoselect), and I only moved it to a hard coded
*aft
[ ...crossposting between stable and freebsd-net trimmed... ]
On Aug 10, 2004, at 4:37 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I've tried in bth half and full duplex mode .. full duplex, Ierrs
climbs, half-duplex, Collisions climb ...
You should expect to see some collisions (1% or so) when working in
half-d
AP is a L2 device, so the upstream IPv6 L-3switch/router to which AP
connects to, If configured to do prefix advertisements, and your client
if properly configured to use IPv6 stack, client can auto-configure
global unicast IPv6 addresses.
Technically your client might have already configured
fe80
In reply to "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
> I have 5 servers sitting on a Linksys 10/100 switch ... 4 of the 5 are
> running fxp0 ethernet, while the 5th is running em ... and the 5th
> performs atrociously:
>
> neptune# netstat -ni | head
> NameMtu Network Address
At 04:37 PM 10/08/2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
I have 5 servers sitting on a Linksys 10/100 switch ... 4 of the 5 are
running fxp0 ethernet, while the 5th is running em ... and the 5th
performs atrociously:
neptune# netstat -ni | head
NameMtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs
I have 5 servers sitting on a Linksys 10/100 switch ... 4 of the 5 are
running fxp0 ethernet, while the 5th is running em ... and the 5th
performs atrociously:
neptune# netstat -ni | head
NameMtu Network Address Ipkts IerrsOpkts Oerrs Coll
em01500 00:07:e9:05:
Max Laier wrote:
On Monday 09 August 2004 09:07, Muhammad Reza wrote:
Dear Lists,
can pf rule work together with ipfw rules ?
i need pf rule to do some outgoing load balance, but still need ipfw to
do some basic packet filtering, cause i have difficulty to set pf rules
default to block if it's a
