> Looks to me like skyr decided to close the connection, and it closed as
> expected. I think the problem is probably above the TCP layer - have you
> tried an older version of rlogin to see if that makes a difference?
Hmm. Thanks Mike,
Until you wrote that I was thinking of install an old Free
Gleb,
On Tuesday 07 March 2006 11:59, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> running a pf load balancer I have noticed that the "swi4: clock"
> process consumes a noticable amount of CPU time, when a lot of
> states are purged from pf cache. The load balancer is also running
> CARP, and a hot spare is working h
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
---
& the only things I typed into that box were
rlogin skyr
ls
I had previously started in another xterm
tcpdump -v -i rl0 -l | grep skyr
& got this:
---
20:49:03.103230 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 15, id 240, offset 0, flags
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:17:42PM -0500, Christopher McGee wrote:
C> Since 6.x is only a .0 I have been reluctant to make a switch for
C> production machines. The machines that this is required for are
C> redundant firewalls. They have the availability to push a full gigabit,
C> will I run in
Hi all.
I'm playing with FAST_IPSEC, and noticed what looks strange for me:
I have an ESP/Tunnel configuration, and when I wanted to track packet
processing in the kernel, I noticed it goes 3 time in ip_input():
- ESP packet passes through ip_input(), and is sent to ipsec code.
- esp_input_cb()
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 12:34:16AM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
Y> > Is this something that will be applied to 5.x - RELEASE at some point?
Y>
Y> 5.5 will be the last RELEASE on the 5.x line, so it's the last
Y> chance now. Alas, I don't feel myself competent enough just to
Y
Max, Daniel, Scott,
running a pf load balancer I have noticed that the "swi4: clock"
process consumes a noticable amount of CPU time, when a lot of
states are purged from pf cache. The load balancer is also running
CARP, and a hot spare is working here too. Reading daily run outputs
from the s
