martin hudec wrote this message on Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 00:34 +0200:
> I am just curious, I know that linux has bonding feature to make
> network cards aggregation, now it is being implemented into upcoming
> OpenBSD 3.8 - does FreeBSD has something similar?
You should look at ng_fec(4) also
Hello all,
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 12:34:05AM +0200 or thereabouts, martin hudec wrote:
> I am just curious, I know that linux has bonding feature to make
> network cards aggregation, now it is being implemented into upcoming
> OpenBSD 3.8 - does FreeBSD has something similar?
Well, found
Hello all,
I am just curious, I know that linux has bonding feature to make
network cards aggregation, now it is being implemented into upcoming
OpenBSD 3.8 - does FreeBSD has something similar?
cheers,
Martin
--
martin hudec
* 421 907 303 393
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:45:52 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Marcin Jessa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 5:29 PM
> Subject: Re: PPPoE and R
Hi.
e.g.)
pkt 1 2 3 4 5 6 sent(snd_wnd=6)
receiver sent ACK 2 with snd_wnd=0(pkt 1 received successfully)
because rcv buffer is full, pkt 2,3,4, dropped.
sender go into persist mode.
when pkt 5, 6 arrived, rcv buffer is now empty. So receiver send ACK2
with snd_wnd=4 (4 = 6-2 : 6 is receiver b
- Original Message -
From: "Marcin Jessa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: PPPoE and Radius on 6.0RC1
The problem seems to be ppp is never started by pppoe.
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:45:02 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Marcin Jessa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Marcin Jessa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:31 PM
> Subject
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:44:57AM +0400 or thereabouts, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> And for 5-th version will not be?
http://people.freebsd.org/~csjp/if_em.c.1129840898.diff
--
martin hudec
* 421 907 303 393
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* http://www.aeternal.net
"Nothing travels fa
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:46:07AM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
Y> > Or are you going to implement per-vlan lock? Is this going to be a benefit?
Y> > Since all packets on trunk are serialized by NIC driver, can there be any
Y> > benefit in creating a mutex per vlan interface, not per vlan trunk?
Y>
Y>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:40:28AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:06:55AM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> Y> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 09:30:33AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Y> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:57:21PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> Y> > Y> The hash code consists of lit
And for 5-th version will not be?
--
С уважением,
GreenX
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:47:27PM +0100, Volker wrote:
> hmm, I hate replying to myself
:-)
[rules]
> I guess as all works fine while pf is disabled this is an pf issue, right?
Not sure: what you described in your first mail also looks like a
"basic" fragmentation problem, which can be easi
12 matches
Mail list logo