In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote:
>< said:
>
>> I'm sitting here looking at that man pages for aio_read and aio_write,
>> and the question occurs to me: ``Home come there is no such thing as
>> an aio_connect function?''
>
>Mostly because there is no need, since connect() doesn't transf
Hello,
is it possible to connect ng_pppoe node to ng_device and to use pppd ?
regards,
Mihail Balikov
- Original Message -
From: "Julian Elischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gleb Smirnoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: new
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote:
> > Let's consider a simple scheme with two NAT boxes
> > where packet flow is asymmetric:
> >
> > A+
> > ||
> > S ---+T
> > ||
> > B+
> ...
> > A has 2.2.2.2 for its outer interface, B has 3.3.3.3 for its.
> > A and B both do "static
< said:
> I'm sitting here looking at that man pages for aio_read and aio_write,
> and the question occurs to me: ``Home come there is no such thing as
> an aio_connect function?''
Mostly because there is no need, since connect() doesn't transfer any
data; it just establishes a connection. If t
On 2004-10-18 11:01, Aleksandr Milewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apologies if this is in a FAQ (or worse, I'm posting to the wrong list).
> *BSD is somewhat new to me as most of my *nix experience is with that
> Finnish OS. :)
>
> Having reached my wits end with NISTnet/netem, I'm trying to bu
Greetings folks,
It is my understanding that when one makes a call to connect(2) in order
to, for example, make an IPv4 TCP connection to some server, a SYN packet
is sent out, and then, if neither a corresponding SYN+ACK nor any other
kind of (NACK) response is received within some specific (sho
[[This question is related vaguely to the other question that I posted
to this list a few minutes ago.]]
I'm sitting here looking at that man pages for aio_read and aio_write,
and the question occurs to me: ``Home come there is no such thing as
an aio_connect function?''
There are clearly cases
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
A slightly updated version: use m_uiotombuf() instead
of homegrown implementation.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:30:28PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> Here is a major rewrite of ng_device. The main
T> differencies with current one are:
looks good to me
_
Apologies if this is in a FAQ (or worse, I'm posting to the wrong list).
*BSD is somewhat new to me as most of my *nix experience is with that
Finnish OS. :)
Having reached my wits end with NISTnet/netem, I'm trying to build a
fast (~1Gb/s) Dummynet machine, and the machines I have available a
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Let's consider a simple scheme with two NAT boxes
> where packet flow is asymmetric:
>
> A+
> ||
> S ---+T
> ||
> B+
...
> A has 2.2.2.2 for its outer interface, B has 3.3.3.3 for its.
> A and B both do "
Hi!
Let's consider a simple scheme with two NAT boxes
where packet flow is asymmetric:
A+
||
S ---+T
||
B+
Here S is a host in the local network and its IP is 192.168.1.1,
A and B are both border routers and both do NAT, T is a target server
in a public In
A more simple version for review, which can be built on latest CURRENT,
where m_tag_free_default() function is defined in sys/mbuf.h.
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 06:29:42PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> This node is just a proof of concept. At this moment a small
T> number of interfaces is supporte
A slightly updated version: use m_uiotombuf() instead
of homegrown implementation.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:30:28PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> Here is a major rewrite of ng_device. The main
T> differencies with current one are:
T>
T> - one dev per node
T> - locking
T> - read queue implemen
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
Serious problems
S Submitted Tracker Resp. Description
---
o [2002/07/26] kern/41007 net overfull traffic on third and fourth adap
o [2003/10/14] kern
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:20:20AM +0300, donatas wrote:
> Hello,
> is there any possibility to use TOS on IPFW-1 machines?
> Wee need to prioritize VOIP (MGCP) packets for high throughput.
> FreeBSD 4.10.
>
> than you in advance
No, TOS field matching implement only in IPFW2 (limited to well know
Hello,
is there any possibility to use TOS on IPFW-1 machines?
Wee need to prioritize VOIP (MGCP) packets for high throughput.
FreeBSD 4.10.
than you in advance
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
16 matches
Mail list logo
