Your message to HostAP awaits moderator approval

2005-06-07 Thread hostap-bounces
Your mail to 'HostAP' with the subject Re: Mail Server Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moder

Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-07 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Tuesday, 7 June 2005 at 11:48:48 +0200, Marc Olzheim wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 07:07:17PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> I posted this message to the -questions list an hour or so ago. >> Possibly it's of interest to people on this list. Certainly the >> problem is non-obvious, so

Re: divert sock api q

2005-06-07 Thread Charles Swiger
On Jun 7, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: [ ...about the ip_vhl byte... ] sorry misread you.. yes.. OK. on my net segment there are a lot of other non IP packets floating around and I am used to seeing 45 and 42 and didn't stop to think that the 42 are not IP :-) No problem, the

Re: divert sock api q

2005-06-07 Thread Julian Elischer
Charles Swiger wrote: On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: I agree with your suggestion, but how can you have an ip_vhl of 0x42? Doesn't a valid IP packet need to have a header length of at least 5 (5 << 2 == 20 bytes)? sorry misread you.. yes.. on my net segment the

Re: divert sock api q

2005-06-07 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2005-06-07 11:27, Christian Kuhtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm using the DIVERT socket API for a proof of concept lab setup here, > and I could use some help.. > > Two boxes are involved, packets traverse both in series. The first one, > lets call her A, is taking the UDP packet off the wir

Re: divert sock api q

2005-06-07 Thread Charles Swiger
On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: I agree with your suggestion, but how can you have an ip_vhl of 0x42? Doesn't a valid IP packet need to have a header length of at least 5 (5 << 2 == 20 bytes)? huh? the first byte of an IP packet is not the length.. the first byte you s

Re: bpf writes on tun device

2005-06-07 Thread Charles Swiger
On Jun 7, 2005, at 4:56 PM, Matthew Luckie wrote: Agreed. When you use BPF or PCAP to capture packets, for the DTL_NULL case there is a 4-byte offset between where PCAP says the packet starts and where the actual raw IP packet starts. If you want BPF/PCAP to return packets without the 4-byt

Re: divert sock api q

2005-06-07 Thread Julian Elischer
Charles Swiger wrote: On Jun 7, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: I apologize for being so exceptionally dense, this is driving me completely up the walls.. if you are receiving the entire IP packet in user space (first byte is 0x42 or 0x45 usually) then you need to update teh p

Re: bpf writes on tun device

2005-06-07 Thread Matthew Luckie
this was the behaviour expected of most DLT_NULL bpf devices already (passing a 32bit int when writing). It is important to note that the behaviour of BPF writers does not change in these cases, and my patch is merely a bug fix. Agreed. When you use BPF or PCAP to capture packets, for the

Re: bpf writes on tun device

2005-06-07 Thread Charles Swiger
On Jun 7, 2005, at 3:54 PM, Matthew Luckie wrote: I'd be wary of changing the definition of DLT_NULL however -- it literally means 'there's nothing here apart from raw data', and changing this notion would mean that we have to change it everywhere, including bpf clients, because the change b

Re: bpf writes on tun device

2005-06-07 Thread Matthew Luckie
I'd be wary of changing the definition of DLT_NULL however -- it literally means 'there's nothing here apart from raw data', and changing this notion would mean that we have to change it everywhere, including bpf clients, because the change being proposed would make DLT_NULL mean 'there's a 32-bit

Re: divert sock api q

2005-06-07 Thread Charles Swiger
On Jun 7, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: I apologize for being so exceptionally dense, this is driving me completely up the walls.. if you are receiving the entire IP packet in user space (first byte is 0x42 or 0x45 usually) then you need to update teh packet length field of the

Welcome to networking hell - ssh, samba, apache and the dreaded CLOSED_WAIT

2005-06-07 Thread Joel V.
First of all, I want to thank everyone in advance who decide to help me. THANK YOU! Now, here's some background info: I have a P4 2.4 server with 512mb of RAM and 160GB hdd. There are two intel NICs, 192.168.0.254 and 82.131.xxx.xx The box is running FreeBSD 4.8 and it's behind a fast 5mbit line

Re: divert sock api q

2005-06-07 Thread Julian Elischer
Christian Kuhtz wrote: Hello, I'm using the DIVERT socket API for a proof of concept lab setup here, and I could use some help.. Two boxes are involved, packets traverse both in series. The first one, lets call her A, is taking the UDP packet off the wire, inserts a few bytes after the

divert sock api q

2005-06-07 Thread Christian Kuhtz
Hello, I'm using the DIVERT socket API for a proof of concept lab setup here, and I could use some help.. Two boxes are involved, packets traverse both in series. The first one, lets call her A, is taking the UDP packet off the wire, inserts a few bytes after the UDP header, and sticks it

Re: installation

2005-06-07 Thread Richard Tector
Olivier Casasole wrote: I am trying to install Freebsd 5.3 on a station which has both Pentium and Celeron. Are you saying that you are using both processors in the same machine? If so, that is unsupported. You need two identical processors. I put the boot floppy and Kernel 1 and 2. Then,

installation

2005-06-07 Thread Olivier Casasole
Hi, I am trying to install Freebsd 5.3 on a station which has both Pentium and Celeron. I put the boot floppy and Kernel 1 and 2. Then, my system was stuck. I obtained something like that: APIC: Using the MADT enumerator MADT: Found CPU ID 0 ACPI ID 1: enabled MADT: Found CPU ID 0 ACPI ID 1: en

Re: bpf writes on tun device

2005-06-07 Thread Bruce M Simpson
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:19:29PM +1200, Matthew Luckie wrote: > Please review. This is good and useful work. It looks like something which has been in need of cleanup for a while. Unfortunately my current situation re resources (time and infrastructure) means that whilst I can review and commit

Re: bpf writes on tun device

2005-06-07 Thread Matthew Luckie
> is there a good reason why _all_ DLT_NULL bpf devices could not simply > have writes supported? the user space application would pass the > address family in the first 4 bytes of the packet; this is currently > done anyway for if_disc, if_loop, if_tun, if_faith, and ng_iface. > ip_carp could get

Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-07 Thread Jeremie Le Hen
Hi Greg, > > DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire > > default150.101.14.9 UGS 07rl0 > > 150.101.14.8/30link#2 UC 00rl0 > > 150.101.14.9 00:90:1a:40:09:98 UHLW2

Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-07 Thread Marc Olzheim
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 07:07:17PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I posted this message to the -questions list an hour or so ago. > Possibly it's of interest to people on this list. Certainly the > problem is non-obvious, so even (as I suspect) if it's my fault, it > would be interesting to d

Re: Problems with gif tunnels

2005-06-07 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
I posted this message to the -questions list an hour or so ago. Possibly it's of interest to people on this list. Certainly the problem is non-obvious, so even (as I suspect) if it's my fault, it would be interesting to document the problem. Greg - Forwarded message from Greg 'groggy' Lehey