- Original Message -
From: "Hernán Freschi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 7:34 AM
Subject: pppoe+radius server
>Hi everyone,
>I'm new to this list and I have a question about PPP. I'm trying to
>port to BSD what I have already done in Linux, it's a pppoe access
>
Hi everyone,
I'm new to this list and I have a question about PPP. I'm trying to
port to BSD what I have already done in Linux, it's a pppoe access
server, like "Project Warta".
On Linux I had a PPP plugin called "radattr.so", which writes a file
named /var/run/radattr.ifacename containing the attr
Hello,
I've searched the archives, but didn't see any answers for this issue.
I'm trying to get internet pptp clients to connect to a natted pptp server.
The box is protected by a pf firewall running nat as well. I'm getting an
error 619, the specified port is not connected. This is a firewall
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:46:00PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As was reported in
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=%0D%0A82974
[snip]
This is definitely a bug, no question about it. RTM_CHANGE should let
you change the next-hop, but not the destination or the netmask. [Sklower]
A
> Hello,
>
> I used to use a tremendously useful and lightweight
> application called ntop - which performed a very very
> simple function: it listed network users on the
> machine, in terms of bandwidth, etc., like the
> traditional top command displays processes.
>
> Simple, easy, lightweight ..
hi
i have router on freebsd 5.4 (5 interfaces), and today found the following
entries in
arp table:
[router] /home/atr# arp 10.5.6.15
? (10.5.6.15) at 00:40:f4:8c:c2:71 on fxp2 permanent [ethernet]
? (10.5.6.15) at 44:44:44:44:44:44 on fxp2 permanent published [ethernet]
is it a feature, o
Slightly off topic, but have you had a chance to look at that lock
recursion bug in the routing code that I had reported awhile ago?
Admittedly, I never send-pr'd it. However, I should have the original
information around... Perhaps I will test.
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:H
Howdy,
As was reported in
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=%0D%0A82974
if you do
route change 10.3.2.1 127.0.0.1
on a system with a default route but no route on the 10 network at
all, you wind up setting the default route to 127.0.0.1 which is
rarely what you want. This is due to t
