Julian Elischer wrote:
Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 04:36:30PM -0800, John Fox wrote:
Hi, folks.
I'm experimenting, trying to setup a situation where connections to
port 25 on machine A are forwarded to port 25 on machine B.
I've read the ipfw manpage and it looks as though wha
His product looks like it's the the product mentioned in the original post by
the original poster;
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=284774+0+/usr/local/www/db/text/2004/freebsd-net/20041024.freebsd-net
QUOTE:
However something like T/TCP is certainly useful and I know of one speci
Karim Fodil-Lemelin wrote:
Hi,
I am jumping in here, was too busy to read the list for the last 2
weeks, so please excuse my intrusion. We are using T/TCP in our
product line and are very happy with the performance gain. Could you
tell me what is the rational for removing T/TCP
(security/p
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 01:40:27PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > Yep, that seems to be exactly what I need. I don't suppose there are
> > any plans to implement something similar in FreeBSD anytime soon?
> > Considering I'm so close to getting this to work it's frustrating to
> > think that I wo
Karim Fodil-Lemelin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am jumping in here, was too busy to read the list for the last 2
> weeks, so please excuse my intrusion. We are using T/TCP in our product
> line and are very happy with the performance gain. Could you tell me
> what is the rational for removing T/TCP
Hi,
I am jumping in here, was too busy to read the list for the last 2
weeks, so please excuse my intrusion. We are using T/TCP in our product
line and are very happy with the performance gain. Could you tell me
what is the rational for removing T/TCP (security/performances/code
complexity,
> If anyone is interested in the full details of this setup please let
> me know and I can provide them. The majority of tweaking had to do
> with getting the right kernel setup though - after which things worked
> mostly as expected.
>
> Thanks again for everyones help.
Yes, it would be very int
Guido van Rooij wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 03:02:17PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > Hi Guido,
> >
> > this is a known problem on RELENG_4, there is an existing patch [1] for
> > this in the PR database.
> >
> > Which version of FreeBSD are you using ? I don't know if this problem
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 03:08:30PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Which version of FreeBSD do you run? Rev 1.75 of ip_dummynet.c is
> relatively old.
5.2.1-RELEASE-p8
>
> The problem you are having is not that dummynet is saving the ifp (it
> needs that for bridged packets) but that it is usin
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 03:02:17PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi Guido,
>
> this is a known problem on RELENG_4, there is an existing patch [1] for
> this in the PR database.
>
> Which version of FreeBSD are you using ? I don't know if this problem
> has been corrected in RELENG_5.
It
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
>
> Hi Guido,
>
> this is a known problem on RELENG_4, there is an existing patch [1] for
> this in the PR database.
>
> Which version of FreeBSD are you using ? I don't know if this problem
> has been corrected in RELENG_5.
Yes, I have fixed it together with the ipfw to
Guido van Rooij wrote:
>
> I am having problems combining ipf's ipnat rules with dummynet. The
> reason is that if I use dummmynet queues configured to
> be used outbound (queue out xmit if), then ipnat starts
> applying rewriting of RDR rules on the wrong interface.
>
> e.g.:
> firewall has
Hi Guido,
this is a known problem on RELENG_4, there is an existing patch [1] for
this in the PR database.
Which version of FreeBSD are you using ? I don't know if this problem
has been corrected in RELENG_5.
[1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/61685
Regards,
Jeremie
On Thu,
I am having problems combining ipf's ipnat rules with dummynet. The
reason is that if I use dummmynet queues configured to
be used outbound (queue out xmit if), then ipnat starts
applying rewriting of RDR rules on the wrong interface.
e.g.:
firewall has 2 interfaces: if0 and if1
if i say:
rd
> Is there any (future) release of FreeBSD concern about multiple default
> gateway ?
> Supposed i want to have load balancing and round robin connection in my
> FreeBSD firewall without routing daemon.
It can be done using ipfw, if you want to use only IPv4.
An example is shown below. (Althou
Dear All,
Is there any (future) release of FreeBSD concern about multiple default
gateway ?
Supposed i want to have load balancing and round robin connection in my
FreeBSD firewall without routing daemon.
regards
reza
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
16 matches
Mail list logo
