On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:27:30AM +0300, Ari Suutari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I sent this to ipfw mailing list some time ago, but
> got no response. I would like to adjust ipfw behaviour
> with fwd rules to make policy routing easier (ie. make
> it separete from filtering rules). I would just like
> some
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:11:57PM +0200, Pieter de Boer wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> > oh yes one thing... you are using 'via foo0' in your rule,
> > which means the packet is intercepted both in the input and
> > output path, which causes further contention on the queues.
> Well, when using '
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
oh yes one thing... you are using 'via foo0' in your rule,
which means the packet is intercepted both in the input and
output path, which causes further contention on the queues.
Well, when using 'ip from client to server recv em0', packets get
matched twice. When I set some
oh yes one thing... you are using 'via foo0' in your rule,
which means the packet is intercepted both in the input and
output path, which causes further contention on the queues.
try 'pipe 1 in recv foo0 ...' which should only intercept
traffic in the input path.
also you can set the queue size i
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>However.. when I deleted the pipe rules on 'network', the speed suddenly
>>went up to around 800mbit/s too! I remade them, and voila, 200mbit/s.
> network emulation is a tricky job :)
It sure is, so I'm happy you're trying to help out :)
> in any case i believe what happens
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 11:14:53PM +0200, Pieter de Boer wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
...
> However.. when I deleted the pipe rules on 'network', the speed suddenly
> went up to around 800mbit/s too! I remade them, and voila, 200mbit/s.
network emulation is a tricky job :)
in any case i believe w
Phil Regnauld wrote:
>Michal Vanco (vanco) writes:
>
>
>>On Sunday 19 June 2005 21:54, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>>
>>>
My vote is that we should implement this functionality and make it
switchable via sysctl. I'd leave the default as is.
>>
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Patrick Domack wrote:
I have been using fxp network based cards, without issues. I have
recently changed over to em cards, and get kernel panics about once
every few days with them (mainly sbdrop panics). I already have
nsfclusters set to 32k, and freebsd vm memory set to
For a number of years, I have had an ADSL connection using a Cisco 675 modem
in NAT mode. My ISP gives me a /29 subnet, which results in 6 available
external addresses. Since the modem was running NAT, I could only use the
public address attached to the modem. A few weeks ago, I switched over to
Hello Friendly FreeBSD people.
Let me get straight to the point.
I am implimenting a FreeBSD Based Firewall.
I have an ADSL Speedtouch 5200 Modem/Router, Currently Plugged into my
Switch.
I want to connect the ADSL modem to my FreeBSD Firewall;
So that the FreeBSD Firewall will be creating a
Hello
I've met next problem.
There is router under freebsd with nge card as parent for several vlans.
vlan102: flags=8843 mtu 1500
inet 10.0.4.1 netmask 0xfe00 broadcast 10.0.5.255
ether 00:40:f4:47:be:10
media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseSX )
status: active
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 12:32:37PM +0100, Meno Abels wrote:
> > > M> i have here a very strange problem which is in real a linux problem
> > > M> but it is triggered by freebsd. I run a lan on which are linux
> > > 2.6.8(debian) and
> > > M> freebsd 5.4 systems are connected to a unmanaged g
12 matches
Mail list logo
