pratish gondalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:To: Vaniavad Knights <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>,
DDITIANS 2004 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: pratish gondalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 22:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ceddit2004] Patrix Reporting: Black listed companies-Very Important
Note: forw
Hi All,
Can someone tell me the status of FreeBSD support for prism54 based
cards at the moment?
I have a XG-600 card, pciconf output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5:0: class=0x028000 card=0x001417cf chip=0x38901260 rev=0x01
hdr=0x00
vendor = 'Intersil Americas Inc (Was: Harris Semiconductor)'
de
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
The patch at http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/testing/
ip_reass-20050507.diff does just this.
Could you kindly test it?
Bye,
--
Suleiman Souhlal | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The concept sounds ok, as long as it doesn't change how fragment
reassembly work
Yes, ifconfig -txcsum fixes the problem, so somewhere packets are not
getting marked to be summed if the hardware checksum is turned on, and
packets don't go to the hardware card, but head to the tap interface
instead.
This will work for a for alittle while, but as these are high usage,
gigabi
Greetings and Salutations:
On 5/8/05 9:13 PM, "Suleiman Souhlal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 7, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Gandalf The White wrote:
>> Take a look at the Linux implementation, they did a pretty good
>> job. It
>> consists of something like:
> The patch at http://people.freebsd.or
Hello,
On May 7, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Gandalf The White wrote:
Take a look at the Linux implementation, they did a pretty good
job. It
consists of something like:
0) Store the size of packet in a variable
1) Add up the number of bytes the fragments received and continue
to store /
accept fragmen
On 2005-05-08 19:22, Michael Bretterklieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Max Laier wrote:
>>On Sunday 08 May 2005 18:54, Michael Bretterklieber wrote:
>>> it looks like that under 5-stable it's allowed to have different
>>> interfaces with the same IP, bug or feature?
>>
>> Feature and required for
Hi,
Max Laier wrote:
On Sunday 08 May 2005 18:54, Michael Bretterklieber wrote:
it looks like that under 5-stable it's allowed to have different
interfaces with the same IP, bug or feature?
Feature and required for CARP to function. You need to change your routeing
ok, this make sense.
table to
On Sunday 08 May 2005 18:54, Michael Bretterklieber wrote:
> it looks like that under 5-stable it's allowed to have different
> interfaces with the same IP, bug or feature?
Feature and required for CARP to function. You need to change your routeing
table to make sure the right one is used for ou
Hi,
it looks like that under 5-stable it's allowed to have different
interfaces with the same IP, bug or feature?
bash-2.05b# ifconfig ath0 inet 192.168.201.12 netmask 0xff00 up
bash-2.05b# ifconfig sk0 inet 192.168.201.12 netmask 0xff00 up
bash-2.05b# ifconfig
ath0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
Patrick,
I have been working with tap interfaces, bridging and openvpn
Bridging works perfectly, and openvpn does too
Packet pings from the tap interface works to any ip address, on the
local machine or computer on the bridged network
Attempting to make a tcp connection works for bridged network,
I have been working with tap interfaces, bridging and openvpn
Bridging works perfectly, and openvpn does too
Packet pings from the tap interface works to any ip address, on the local
machine or computer on the bridged network
Attempting to make a tcp connection works for bridged network, but not
12 matches
Mail list logo
