I came across this bug (or feature) in the FreeBSD "transparent bridge"
module, and am wondering whether or not anyone can shed some light on it.
By "transparent bridge", I mean that my /boot/loader.conf file has the
line
bridge_load="YES"
and that my /etc/rc.conf file has the line
ifconfig_fxp
Tethys,
I followed all the steps as you directed and it worked like a charm! I
have successfully upgraded to 4.11-STABLE.
Thank you very much plus everybody else that made a contribution.
Rgds,
Julius.
> Hi,
>
> firstly
>
> #/usr/share/example/cvsup
> # cvsup -g -L 2 stable-subfile
>
> than
> c
> At Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:02:01 +0200,
> Danny Braniss wrote:
> > This is not my case, no kernel messages, I see the packets. (im mirrowing
> > the traffic to another host so that i can 'sniff' it).
> >
> > the host has indeed two nics, but only one is connected.
> > The problem - if indeed it is -
> [...]
> > On host 192.168.0.2, the tcpdump output:
> >
> > 00:10:53.445868 0:2:b3:da:50:ba Broadcast arp 60:
> > arp who-has 192.168.0.2 tell 192.168.0.6
> > 00:10:53.445888 0:e:c:68:e3:94 0:2:b3:da:50:ba arp 42:
> > arp reply 192.168.0.2 is-at 0:e:c:68
[...]
> On host 192.168.0.2, the tcpdump output:
>
> 00:10:53.445868 0:2:b3:da:50:ba Broadcast arp 60:
> arp who-has 192.168.0.2 tell 192.168.0.6
> 00:10:53.445888 0:e:c:68:e3:94 0:2:b3:da:50:ba arp 42:
> arp reply 192.168.0.2 is-at 0:e:c:68:e3:94
> 00:
hi,
i've been searching the web and reading manuals and i cannot figure if i
am setting up my freebsd box correctly. And now i have many question, hope
somen out there have answers for some of them.
So, the system I am aiming to:
+(>
|[Internet Antenna](>
| real ip address: x.x.x.94
| routed n
Jeff Behl writes:
| that's not the way it's supposed to work, afaik. it'd be silly to tie
| the BMC address and the OS assigned address together. you give the BMC
| an ip address via a little program that comes from IBM and this address
| is independent of the ip address that whatever os you use
Julian Elischer writes:
| Jeff wrote:
| > I'm not sure what you mean by in band. The IP address of the BMC is
| > assigned via the bios and is different from what the OS later
| > assigns. With imiptool we can turn on/powercycle/monitor via the BMC
| > assigned address up until the point where
At Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:02:01 +0200,
Danny Braniss wrote:
> This is not my case, no kernel messages, I see the packets. (im mirrowing
> the traffic to another host so that i can 'sniff' it).
>
> the host has indeed two nics, but only one is connected.
> The problem - if indeed it is - only appears
I came across this bug (or feature) in the FreeBSD "transparent bridge"
module, and am wondering whether or not anyone can shed some light on it.
By "transparent bridge", I mean that my /boot/loader.conf file has the
line
bridge_load="YES"
and that my /etc/rc.conf file has the line
ifconfig_
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 07:46, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Since talking about ng_fec, and the cisco switch, I started to play with
> it a bit, and one of the things I've finally setup is snmp/mrtg, so that I
> can monitor bw activity ...
>
> one thing that I've noticed is that two of my machines
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Julius Kidubuka wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to upgrade from 4.10-RELEASE to 4.10-STABLE and I have gone
through the following steps;
1. make buildworld
2. make buildkernel KERNCONF=MYKERN
3. make installkernel KERNCONF=MYKERN
4. boot
Since talking about ng_fec, and the cisco switch, I started to play with
it a bit, and one of the things I've finally setup is snmp/mrtg, so that I
can monitor bw activity ...
one thing that I've noticed is that two of my machines are doing alot of
bandwidth, while the other two are doing signi
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but didn't think this was doable ...
Why not:
ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.2/24
ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.208.2/24 alias
ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.10/32 alias
ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.5/32 alias
ifco
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, 17:16+0300, dima wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am trying to upgrade from 4.10-RELEASE to 4.10-STABLE and I have gone
> > through the following steps;
> >
> > 1. make buildworld
> > 2. make buildkernel KERNCONF=MYKERN
> > 3. make installkernel KERNCONF=MYKERN
> > 4. booted into
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to upgrade from 4.10-RELEASE to 4.10-STABLE and I have gone
> through the following steps;
>
> 1. make buildworld
> 2. make buildkernel KERNCONF=MYKERN
> 3. make installkernel KERNCONF=MYKERN
> 4. booted into single user mode and did, mount -u /, mount -a
4a. mergemaste
Hi all,
I am trying to upgrade from 4.10-RELEASE to 4.10-STABLE and I have gone
through the following steps;
1. make buildworld
2. make buildkernel KERNCONF=MYKERN
3. make installkernel KERNCONF=MYKERN
4. booted into single user mode and did, mount -u /, mount -a
5. make installworld
6. mergemast
I am observing the TCP SACK behavior of FreeBSD stale.
I found the followings:
o After the third duplicate ACK, i.e., it enters recovery mode,
it seems that the outstanding window size may not be halved.
It sends one data segment for each duplicate ACK received.
If the number of los
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Hi,
>
> I need to have some jails configured, sharing single IP address (IPv6
> is a no-no for the time being:). Therefore I came up with an idea of
> binding them all to lo0 and assigning subsequent IP aliases as the
> addresses. The requirement
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> but didn't think this was doable ...
> > Why not:
> > ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.2/24
> > ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.208.2/24 alias
> > ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.10/32 alias
> > ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.5/32 alias
> > ifconfig fxp0 i
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, [UTF-8] SÅ~Bawek Å»ak wrote:
Hi,
I need to have some jails configured, sharing single IP address (IPv6
is a no-no for the time being:). Therefore I came up with an idea of
binding them all to lo0 and assigning subsequent IP aliases as the
addresses. The requirement for the jail
> After reading up on the Cisco stuff that ng_fec is meant for, I'm curious
> as to whether there is a way of determining if its needed ... in my case,
> I have one server, two ethernets but all attaching to the same switch ...
> is there some way of determining if the interface(s) (on either ht
> Depends on what the arps are for.
>
> On my network router (which is running 5.3), I noticed a lot of ARP messages
> that were not as a result of any configuration errors and was able to put a
> stop
> to it by using this control variable in sysctl:
>
> net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_wrong_ifac
Depends on what the arps are for.
On my network router (which is running 5.3), I noticed a lot of ARP messages
that were not as a result of any configuration errors and was able to put a stop
to it by using this control variable in sysctl:
net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_wrong_iface=0
Furth
While debuging something else, im noticing my host sending out
'Gratuitous ARP' serveral times per second all the time.
Q: is this normal?
btw, the host is running 5.3 and the ethernet hardware is
thanks,
danny
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.
25 matches
Mail list logo
