So ditch pf and let us know. Or swap to ipf
Z.C.B. writes:
I am positive it is something to do with pf. I copied the exact same
config file from the vpn server over to another box and pointed the
client at it and it worked perfectly fine. Any one see any thing odd
in that pf setup or have any
I am positive it is something to do with pf. I copied the exact same
config file from the vpn server over to another box and pointed the
client at it and it worked perfectly fine. Any one see any thing odd
in that pf setup or have any suggestions or the like?
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:55:05 -0500
Vul
Just been messing around with openvpn and trying to get it up and
running using http://openvpn.net/static.html as a guide. It works,
but I run into a weird problem with data moving across the vpn. I can
send a ping across from the client to the server, but the server
never sends any thing back. I u
On 22/09/2005 8:40 PM, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Therefore I'd like to ask: Does the VIA VT6103 work with-
out problems under FreeBSD (RELENG_5 or RELENG_6, or maybe
even RELENG_4)?
Better yet: Does someone use an EPIA PD* board with both
on-board interfaces under FreeBSD without problems?
I'm us
Nice work!
Is possible to implement a "port address forwarding" (aka PAT) using some
ipfw rules? (or with any other way)
Something similar to "-redirect_port" option of natd(8).
TIA,
Chris.
Paolo Pisati wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:41:16AM +, Nate Nielsen wrote:
No. I think ea
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:41:16AM +, Nate Nielsen wrote:
> No. I think each instance of natd (at least last time I looked at it)
> could only use one IP address as it's public address.
FYI you can use nat inside ipfw[*]:
ipfw nat 1 config ip 192.168.0.123
ipfw nat 2 config ip 192.168.0.456
.
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 15:19, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Matthew Jakeman wrote:
> > Some colleagues and myself have performed some simple tests on various
> > OS's using iperf to simply fire packets from one pc to another over
> > ethernet to test a few characteristics such as packet loss, jitte
> >
> I have a bridge with one fxp0 nic (which I renamed to net0) and one tap1
> device. The other end runs linux as DHCP server on LAN.
> It communicates with the DHCP server through the fxp0 device which is a
> member of the same bridge.
>
Then it would in my opinion be more correct to run dhc
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>>Often there already is need for a tcp connection for authentication,
>>negotiation and so forth.
>>
>>RTT could, among other things, make a discovery process choose how fine
>>the increments/descrements should be.
>>
>>Estimated bandwidth could also help the actu
Dave+Seddon wrote:
> Greeting Sten,
> I'm a little worried about a couple of the things you've said:
>
> 1. "It is more common to block icmp messages about reassembly problems
> than DF problems IF a message is generated in the first place."
> I think that's crap. Most firewalls DO correctly an
Yes, portfast is enabled, switchport mode trunk, spanning tree is enabled too.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:19 +1000, Dave+Seddon wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> There seems to be heaps of people on the list reporting errors with em
> cards and FreeBSD 5.4 -stable-ish (as in cvsup-ed within the last coup
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:54:21PM +0300, Justas Jakubauskas wrote:
>
> > -vlandev takes a useless argument (vlan(4) cannot attach to more
> > than one parent anyway) while, e.g., -carpdev doesn't need one.
>
> And how system should know, to which device attach your vlan ?
"-vlandev" is for _det
> -vlandev takes a useless argument (vlan(4) cannot attach to more
> than one parent anyway) while, e.g., -carpdev doesn't need one.
And how system should know, to which device attach your vlan ?
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.f
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 11:35:06 +0100 (BST)
Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Marcin Jessa wrote:
>
> > I do not know if it's meant to be that way but tap devices cannot
> > get IPs assigned with DHCP. I did not check the old dhclient code
> > but the new one cannot
Hi folks,
As our ifconfig(8) is growing more options for special interface
types, inconsistencies sneak into their syntax. In particular,
-vlandev takes a useless argument (vlan(4) cannot attach to more
than one parent anyway) while, e.g., -carpdev doesn't need one.
Personally, I like the latter
Hi,
I'm currently considering to buy a VIA EPIA PD-class main-
board as a replacement for my current LAN router.
The mainboard has two fastethernet ports, according to the
spec it is one VIA VT6105 and one VIA VT6103.
I know that both are supposed to be supported by FreeBSD.
However, searching th
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Marcin Jessa wrote:
I do not know if it's meant to be that way but tap devices cannot get
IPs assigned with DHCP. I did not check the old dhclient code but the
new one cannot hand over DHCP requests to tap devices. I was sure a tap
device acted as an ethernet device even
Hi,
> Often there already is need for a tcp connection for authentication,
> negotiation and so forth.
>
> RTT could, among other things, make a discovery process choose how fine
> the increments/descrements should be.
>
> Estimated bandwidth could also help the actual data transport start out
>
Nate Nielsen (nielsen-list) writes:
> No. I think each instance of natd (at least last time I looked at it)
> could only use one IP address as it's public address.
One could use probability rules to divert to different natds with
different NAT addresses, and use choparp / aliases t
No. I think each instance of natd (at least last time I looked at it)
could only use one IP address as it's public address.
Cheers,
Nate
Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote:
> Exists the possibility to make NAT POOL with IPFW + NATD ?
>
___
freebsd-net@freebs
Hi guys.
I do not know if it's meant to be that way but tap devices cannot get IPs
assigned with DHCP.
I did not check the old dhclient code but the new one cannot hand over DHCP
requests to tap devices.
I was sure a tap device acted as an ethernet device even though it's a virtual
one, since o
21 matches
Mail list logo
