dnr wrote:
hello,
i've noticed that IPFW2 on 5.2.1 system has 30% bigger system load than IPFW1 on 4.10
(equivalent firewall configuration, consisting of ~1 rules).
So, is it possible to use IPFW1 on FreeBSD 5.2.1?
The ipfw 1 code was removed..
You would have to talk with your countryman [EMAI
hello,
i've noticed that IPFW2 on 5.2.1 system has 30% bigger system load than IPFW1 on 4.10
(equivalent firewall configuration, consisting of ~1 rules).
So, is it possible to use IPFW1 on FreeBSD 5.2.1?
thanx in advance
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] maili
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 10:44:56AM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 00:46, James wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 09:28:11PM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:
> > > Hello...
> > >
> > > I am trying to use an Intel Pro 1000xf (Multimode fiber/SC connector)
> > > card on
On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 00:46, James wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 09:28:11PM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:
> > Hello...
> >
> > I am trying to use an Intel Pro 1000xf (Multimode fiber/SC connector)
> > card on a FreeBSD 4.10 system. The switch (not mine) I need to talk to
> > is not con
The following reply was made to PR kern/44355; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tilman Linneweh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kern/44355: After deletion of an IPv6 alias, the
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:39:39 GMT,
> Tilman Linneweh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Synopsis: After deletion of an IPv6 alias, the route to the whole subnet is removed
> too.
> Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
> Responsible-Changed-By: arved
> Responsible-Changed-When
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 09:28:11PM -0700, Christopher McCrory wrote:
> Hello...
>
> I am trying to use an Intel Pro 1000xf (Multimode fiber/SC connector)
> card on a FreeBSD 4.10 system. The switch (not mine) I need to talk to
> is not configured for auto-negotiation, but forced to 100/full
