Hello,
I'm having this application (VPN daemon) which
uses divert sockets for sending stuff http://www.targeted.org/nest/
It worked fine under 5.3-RELEASE but broke after
recent upgrade to FreeBSD 5.3-STABLE.
An attempt to send() via divert socket now returns
EDESTADDRREQ "Destination address req
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Kelly Yancey wrote:
> >
> > How about a generic per-interface pfil demultiplexer? That is, a module
> > that uses the existing pfil hooks to in turn call per-interface hooks.
> > As Luigi suggested earlier, it would be possible to use the interface
Kelly Yancey wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:47:35PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > A> > Implementationwise, the kernel side is evidently trivial as the
> > A> > original code already supports the idea of multiple chains. All
> > A> > you
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:47:35PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> A> > Implementationwise, the kernel side is evidently trivial as the
> A> > original code already supports the idea of multiple chains. All
> A> > you need is to extend the struct ifnet
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-home
Having pulled in some updates from HEAD to get the BCM5751 working, I am
now stuck at a maximum transmit rate of about 620Mb/s.
Receive works fine, I can receive at about 950Mb/s, but transmit seems
limited. Same hardware (same box) under Linux does 950Mb/s each way, no
problem.
This is with i
Has anyone been able to get OpenNMS/java/et al. to work together on 5.3?
The last mention of it I see on the lists is almost 2 years old, has
anyone been able to get it working (or not) since then? Just wondering if
it's worth my time to attempt it.
--
Ryan Sommers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
It seems I've somehow didn't set up my freebsd gateway properly. I am
trying to use my FreeBSD server as a NAT with port redirection. NAT works
fine, but when I use port redirection to redirect requests from my external
interface em0 160.79.174.98:80 the request makes it to my internal web
se
Michael Hopkins, Hopkins Research wrote:
> I keep reading that Mac OS X is very easy to get working other machines
> using open standards. This is not my current experience after two
> fruitless days messing about with NFS, but I am no network expert so maybe
> I am missing something really obviou
Hello Zeno,
Check your default gateway on 192.168.1.54.
It seems to be 192.168.1.1 instead of 192.168.168.55:
12:51:57.118967 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.54
Wednesday, December 15, 2004, 9:10:21 PM, Zeno Lee wrote:
ZL> It seems I've somehow didn't set up my freebsd gateway properly.
Hi all
I keep reading that Mac OS X is very easy to get working other machines
using open standards. This is not my current experience after two fruitless
days messing about with NFS, but I am no network expert so maybe I am
missing something really obvious - or maybe it's the FreeBSD box that i
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:04:12PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> A> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:03:27PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> A> > A> d1. The PFIL_HOOKS API has one hook per direction per protocol and
> A> > A> passes the interface information to the fir
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:50:55AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> A> First you change the way pfil_hooks is used in a multiprotocol incompatible
> A> way. Lets have a look at ip_input():
> A>
> A> pfil_run_hooks(&inet_pfil_hook, &m, m->m_pkthdr.rcvif, PFIL_IN, NULL);
>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:04:12PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:03:27PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> > A> d1. The PFIL_HOOKS API has one hook per direction per protocol and
A> > A> passes the interface information to the firewall package.
A> > A> d2. Shou
Hi,
Quoting http://www.moatware.com/support/docbook/faq-bridge.html,
10.8. Why can't hosts on a NATed interface talk to hosts on a bridged
interface?
This frequently happens when someone wants to bridge an interface to their
WAN to use it as a DMZ, and wants to put all of the hosts on their LAN
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:57:09PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:50:55AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
> A> Secondly the stuct ifnet would have to be extended with a pfil_head pointer
> A> for every protocol family in the system. This would be non-dynamic and
> A> wo
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:50:55AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> First you change the way pfil_hooks is used in a multiprotocol incompatible
A> way. Lets have a look at ip_input():
A>
A> pfil_run_hooks(&inet_pfil_hook, &m, m->m_pkthdr.rcvif, PFIL_IN, NULL);
A> ^^
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:03:27PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> A> d1. The PFIL_HOOKS API has one hook per direction per protocol and
> A> passes the interface information to the firewall package.
> A> d2. Should the PFIL_HOOKS API be changed and be per interface
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:12:31PM -0500, James wrote:
> J> The way we have approached this in the past is to install /32 host routes
> J> for each interface addr's and respective subnet and broadcast /32 addresses
> J> into the kernel RIB, destined to lo0 interface. Place
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 04:02:37PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> A> > ??, 14/12/2004 ? 13:54 +0100, Andre Oppermann ?:
> A> > > It's about HOW to implement it. I think the ways proposed so far are
> A> > > hackish, too complex and outside of our framework which wa
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:00:40PM +0100, Heinz Knocke wrote:
> b) according to the vendor's info, NIC should be able to do jumboframes.
> (http://www.marvell.com/products/pcconn/yukon/Yukon_88E8001_10_073103_final.pdf)
>
> ifconfig mtu 9000 works, but packets seems to come truncated (in both
>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 12:13:29PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:49:09AM -0500, James wrote:
> J> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:45:40AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> J> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:12:31PM -0500, James wrote:
> J> > J> The way we have approached this in the
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:12:31PM -0500, James wrote:
J> The way we have approached this in the past is to install /32 host routes
J> for each interface addr's and respective subnet and broadcast /32 addresses
J> into the kernel RIB, destined to lo0 interface. Place your per-interface
J> filter on
FYI, I've talked to YOPY PDA(also StrongArm-based linux PDA) using
udbp + ng_eiface (with minor hack, namely, add DEVICE/VENDOR ID.)
This combination seems to be compatible with linux's usbnet
implementation. But I've told Zaurus doesn't use standard arm linux kernel..
I think you should hack ng_ei
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:49:09AM -0500, James wrote:
J> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:45:40AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
J> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:12:31PM -0500, James wrote:
J> > J> The way we have approached this in the past is to install /32 host
routes
J> > J> for each interface addr's a
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:03:27PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> d1. The PFIL_HOOKS API has one hook per direction per protocol and
A> passes the interface information to the firewall package.
A> d2. Should the PFIL_HOOKS API be changed and be per interface instead
A> of per protocol
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:18:10AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
[ snip ]
>
> Sorry, but the short answer is "same was as in Cisco|Juniper world". The
> longer
> description is:
>
> The cloner will. If this was sysadmin with ifconfig in his hands, then he
> will attach chains to interface. The sa
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 11:45:40AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:12:31PM -0500, James wrote:
> J> The way we have approached this in the past is to install /32 host routes
> J> for each interface addr's and respective subnet and broadcast /32 addresses
> J> into the kerne
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 04:02:37PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> > ÷ ??, 14/12/2004 ? 13:54 +0100, Andre Oppermann ?:
A> > > It's about HOW to implement it. I think the ways proposed so far are
A> > > hackish, too complex and outside of our framework which was very well
A> > > designed and
29 matches
Mail list logo
