On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:59:17 -0800 (PST), asdfasdfasd asdfds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For those who use TCPDUMP, how much bandwidth have you
> been able to monitor with it without dropping packets?
> I've seen it said that BSD is much better for this
> type of thing than Linux, but
Sorry for that much posts but something weird is going on ... I left
bridge for a while (more than route/arp cache period) and then the stopped.
Same happens when you clear the arp cache as I find out. And as I
expected arps didn't get from the bridge to the host (wherever who-has
ot is-on).
A
Iasen Kostov wrote:
Iasen Kostov wrote:
Tony Ackerman wrote:
What is the purpose of putting em1 in promiscuous mode below? Is
the required or did you just notice the issue with this configuration?
There was a change added some months ago in order to allow the
bridging of vlans. In order for vlan
Iasen Kostov wrote:
Tony Ackerman wrote:
What is the purpose of putting em1 in promiscuous mode below? Is
the required or did you just notice the issue with this configuration?
There was a change added some months ago in order to allow the
bridging of vlans. In order for vlan briding to work the
Tony Ackerman wrote:
What is the purpose of putting em1 in promiscuous mode below? Is
the required or did you just notice the issue with this configuration?
There was a change added some months ago in order to allow the
bridging of vlans. In order for vlan briding to work the interface
had to hav
> i need to implement gateway redundancy for our server farm. I found
> UCARP ( http://www.ucarp.org ) as a potential solution, but it is
> written it is tested successfully only on Linux, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
>
> Did anybody have luck with it under FreeBSD ?
I've just disc
Vladimir Terziev wrote:
Hi,
i need to implement gateway redundancy for our server farm. I found
UCARP ( http://www.ucarp.org ) as a potential solution, but it is written it is
tested successfully only on Linux, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
Did anybody have luck with it under FreeBSD ?
Try
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> Hi Max,
>
> I played today with "netmasked aliases", and found what
> appears to be another bug.
>
> Adding an alias to the Ethernet interface with the same
> netmask results in this address not being pingable from
> this host -- i
NiY wrote:
Greetings! I have yet to find a definitive answer on this subject, so
I was hoping someone would let me know the official way to go about
this, or if it's even possible.
We have two ADSL services coming into out building. We would like to
use them both on one network, using a multi-homed
Hi Max,
I played today with "netmasked aliases", and found what
appears to be another bug.
Adding an alias to the Ethernet interface with the same
netmask results in this address not being pingable from
this host -- it just spits ARP requests to the wire and
never hears back (most Ethernets are s
Iasen Kostov wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Kevin Day wrote:
I recently upgraded to 5.3 on a system, and manually upgraded
src/sys/dev/em/* to the latest RELENG_5 versions. (1.44.2.4 of
if_em.c)
I'm able to reproduce problems using the below configuration is 6.x
also,
and
I know it, but it is for FreeBSD 5.x . My gateways run FreeBSD 4.10 and i
don't have plans to upgrade them for now.
Vladimir
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:34:13 +0100
Max Laier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2004 14:31, Vladimir Terziev wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i need t
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 14:31, Vladimir Terziev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i need to implement gateway redundancy for our server farm. I found UCARP
> ( http://www.ucarp.org ) as a potential solution, but it is written it is
> tested successfully only on Linux, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
>
> Did anybody have
Hi,
i need to implement gateway redundancy for our server farm. I found
UCARP ( http://www.ucarp.org ) as a potential solution, but it is written it is
tested successfully only on Linux, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
Did anybody have luck with it under FreeBSD ?
Hi,
(sorry for last long mail)
I have problem with D.o.S and DD.o.S attacks.
I wonder if someone already wrote/know about a module that works like
pop_before_smtp,
it watches /var/log/security and if it sees that in the past 30 seconds many
packets
were received to an IP it unbinds its (ifconfig
Hi,
I have problem with D.o.S and DD.o.S attacks.
I wonder if someone already wrote/know about a module that works like
pop_before_smtp, it watches /var/log/security and if it sees that in the past
30 seconds many packets were received to an IP it unbinds its (ifconfig em0 ip
delete), and track
Hi,
But I may be
missing something because I can see no way in firewall rules to
distinguish between the before IPSec processing hook and the after IPSec
processing one. Could you clarify this for me please ?
There is a keyword "ipsec" in ipfw2, which matches if packet has emerged
from ipsec
17 matches
Mail list logo
