Allowing fwd rules on bridged traffic isn't too difficult, but does
require kernel modifications (in ipfw).
As Mao says it can only work on layer 3 packets. But, that doesn't
mean you can't do it. It just means that when you add the FWD option
into the layer 2 ipfw switch statement you ha
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:29:43PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> > It adds a stub function call every tick. The function returns almost
A> > immediately if no interfaces do polling.
A>
A> If it does a FOREACH(interface) then it should stay as a kernel option.
It isn't. Just 'if (poll_handlers
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:29:43PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
...
> > It adds a stub function call every tick. The function returns almost
> > immediately if no interfaces do polling.
>
> If it does a FOREACH(interface) then it should stay as a kernel option.
this wasn't the case when i first
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:13:22PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> P> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:03:02PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> P> +> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:40:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> P> +> T> [please, follow-up on net@ only]
> P> +> T>
> P> +>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:13:22PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
P> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:03:02PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
P> +> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:40:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
P> +> T> [please, follow-up on net@ only]
P> +> T>
P> +> T> Colleagues,
P> +> T>
P> +> T>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:03:02PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
+> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:40:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
+> T> [please, follow-up on net@ only]
+> T>
+> T> Colleagues,
+> T>
+> T> here are some patches for review.
+>
+> I have some changes to patch after last compil
Can anybody please help with problem.
Using natd and ipfw and trying to fwd packets to a non-default router
out the same interface.
Currently using alias for the second ip, but it doesn't seem to be
working for some some reason I'm missing. Would clone maybe work?
Any advice would be appreciate
Hi,
I am seeing a lot of these messages in my /var/log/messages directory and
cannot understand why:
arplookup 192.168.0.12 failed: could not allocate llinfo
arpresolve: can't allocate llinfo for 192.168.0.12rt
There were more of these messages for two other IPs (one external), but this
is the
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:40:00PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> [please, follow-up on net@ only]
T>
T> Colleagues,
T>
T> here are some patches for review.
I have some changes to patch after last compile, and haven't tested them
befire sending patch. Here is an updated one.
--
Totus tu
combination of tcpdump and nemesis may do the trick
Nick
-Original Message-
From: det_re [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:53 AM
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: tcpdump based packet generator
has anyone seen or implemented packet generator
capable of read
On Friday 30 September 2005 08:40 am, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> [please, follow-up on net@ only]
>
> Colleagues,
>
> here are some patches for review.
>
> Problems addressed:
>
> 1) When Giant was removed from polling a problem was introduced. The idle
> poll feature was broken. The idle pol
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 02:44:54AM -0400, Daemon wrote:
D> I hope this is the correct list to post to, if not, I apologize. I've
D> had an ongoing problem with arplookup for some months now and as of yet,
D> haven't been able to find anything on the web concerning my particular
D> problem. Every
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 05:31:05PM +1000, Dave+Seddon wrote:
D> There seem to be serious issues around this driver. There have been many
D> posts on this list in the last days particularly, as well as over the last
D> few months. People seem to be looking at it, and I guess once we all rush
D>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robert Watson writes:
>On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> I still think we should stop having this network-centric view of polling
>> and implement _real_ *device* polling, so that other device types can
>> use it as well.
>
>While I agree that we s
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I still think we should stop having this network-centric view of polling
and implement _real_ *device* polling, so that other device types can
use it as well.
While I agree that we should offer polling to non-network device drivers
also, I think
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 02:43:51PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
P> I still think we should stop having this network-centric view of
P> polling and implement _real_ *device* polling, so that other
P> device types can use it as well.
I agree with both hands. My current work is aimed at RELENG_6 o
I still think we should stop having this network-centric view of
polling and implement _real_ *device* polling, so that other
device types can use it as well.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD si
[please, follow-up on net@ only]
Colleagues,
here are some patches for review.
Problems addressed:
1) When Giant was removed from polling a problem was introduced. The idle
poll feature was broken. The idle poll thread can enter polling handler on
one interface and put to sleep for a
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:10:19 +0400
Andrey Smagin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi ALL,
Hi Andrey.
> People please say it possible under FreeBSD ?
> Any body have sucess stories about it ?
> What manual I must read to do it ? :)
>
man ifconfig should be the place to start.
Anyway, you can con
NO, fwd can work only on layer 3 packet!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcin Jessa
Sent: 2005年9月30日 15:35
To: Ganbold
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ipfw bridge + fwd questions
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:39:49 +0900
Ganbold <[EMAI
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, 10:10+0400, Andrey Smagin wrote:
> Hi ALL,
>
> People please say it possible under FreeBSD ?
> Any body have sucess stories about it ?
> What manual I must read to do it ? :)
Mm, let me think... man ath, "EXAMPLES"?
--
Maxim Konovalov
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:39:49 +0900
Ganbold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question regarding ipfw fwd rule.
> I'm using FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE and running on it bridging firewall
> using ipfw.
>
> Now my question comes:)
> Can I use ipfw fwd rules against traffic coming to one of the
22 matches
Mail list logo
