On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 07:13:18PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> I have no objections so this change. Does this help or hurt our quest
> to be able to usefully bind to 0.0.0.0? It would be really nice if we
> could eventually do this so we could stop running bpf on 90+% of all
> machines just so w
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> All,
>
> I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.
> This
> time I am set to commit!
>
> The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> from
> WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1
On Thursday 11 November 2004 22:55, Andrea Campi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> > The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> > from WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 improves the handling of automatic
> > prefix routes.
>
> Sound
On Thursday 11 November 2004 22:29, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
> On Thu, 11.11.2004 at 21:24:05 +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> > The patch allows to add more than on IPv4 address with the same prefix.
> > In the case that there is a route already, we leave it alone and add the
> > new address without the I
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived
> from
> WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 improves the handling of automatic prefix
> routes.
Sounds like a very useful change indeed.
One comment though:
> @@
On Thu, 11.11.2004 at 21:24:05 +0100, Max Laier wrote:
> The patch allows to add more than on IPv4 address with the same prefix. In
> the
> case that there is a route already, we leave it alone and add the new address
> without the IFA_ROUTE flag. When we remove an address later on, that has a
All,
I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere. This
time I am set to commit!
The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived from
WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 improves the handling of automatic prefix
routes.
Right now you can't hav
That seems to work, thanks a lot!
-Anthony Volodkin
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Mihail Balikov wrote:
ipfw add allow ip from any to 192.168.100.100 { via fxp0 or via ng0 or
via xl0 }
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Anthony Volodkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: T
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:05:36AM -0500, Anthony Volodkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been trying to implement some ipfw rules that would match several
> interfaces using the recv/via/xmit keywords, however that seems to be
> unsupported. So a rule like:
>
> ipfw add allow ip from any to 192.168.100.
> Does anyone know whether this is actually possible/supported/supported
> in the near future? Sure I could make a rule for each interface, but
> in my situation that would not scale well.
It is not possible at the moment. I'm not aware of any plan about this.
Regards,
--
Jeremie Le Hen
[EMAIL
On Mon, 09-Aug-2004 at 18:37:39 +0200, Pawel Malachowski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 12:54:08AM +0200, Pawel Malachowski wrote:
>
> > I can see weird behavior of this command:
> > traceroute -s privateIP -P UDP dst
> > Outgoing UDP packets are translated, ICMP time-exceded message comes b
Hi,
I've been trying to implement some ipfw rules that would match several
interfaces using the recv/via/xmit keywords, however that seems to be
unsupported. So a rule like:
ipfw add allow ip from any to 192.168.100.100 via {fxp0,ng0,xl0}
fails with an invalid ) error. Alternatively if I use a
12 matches
Mail list logo
