Hello,
I could not figureout the answer to a question. Here is the situation:
PC A: Windows XP Pro.
PC B: FreeBSD 6.1, connected to internet, acting as a gateway for PC
A, with NAT (built by hanbook instructions
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-natd.html),
open f
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:47:54PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote..
> I am getting a panic with a GENERIC with all non-available hardware
> drivers stripped out with "device fddi" and "device fpa" in the config.
> The only things I added to GENERIC after stripping out the unneeded
> things was the fdd
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:26:25PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> Oh, by the way: I should mention that the server is running FreeBSD
> 4.11. It's doing file-intensive work, and file system performance
> in FreeBSD 6.x is noticeably slower.
ipfw tables are also in 4.11
> Your message does suggest an
Oh, by the way: I should mention that the server is running FreeBSD
4.11. It's doing file-intensive work, and file system performance
in FreeBSD 6.x is noticeably slower.
Your message does suggest another possible solution, though. Would
blackhole routes be more efficient than using IPFW?
--Brett
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:22:46PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 03:07 PM 6/20/2006, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> >there are efficient tables in ipfw as well, which Ruslan implemented
> >some time ago -- yet another reason we should be grateful to him
>
> How would I build a table of arbitrary IP add
At 03:07 PM 6/20/2006, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>there are efficient tables in ipfw as well, which Ruslan implemented
>some time ago -- yet another reason we should be grateful to him
How would I build a table of arbitrary IP addresses and be able
to update it atomically (i.e. add and delete individua
On 6/21/06, Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everyone:
I've got an application in which I must block incoming TCP
connections to a FreeBSD server from a potentially large list of IP
addresses. Using IPFW is not a very efficient way to accomplish
this, because it must do a linear search of
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 10:57:30PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Brett Glass (brett) writes:
> >
> > I've got an application in which I must block incoming TCP
> > connections to a FreeBSD server from a potentially large list of IP
> > addresses. Using IPFW is not a very efficient way to accompl
Brett Glass (brett) writes:
>
> I've got an application in which I must block incoming TCP
> connections to a FreeBSD server from a potentially large list of IP
> addresses. Using IPFW is not a very efficient way to accomplish
> this, because it must do a linear search of a list (either one
>
Everyone:
I've got an application in which I must block incoming TCP
connections to a FreeBSD server from a potentially large list of IP
addresses. Using IPFW is not a very efficient way to accomplish
this, because it must do a linear search of a list (either one
address per rule or an "or" l
The following reply was made to PR kern/99188; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Staffan Ulfberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/99188: [tcp] [patch] FIN in same packet as duplicate ACK is
lost
Date: 20 Jun 2006 21:49:16 +0200
I forgot to say that the Windows X
I am getting a panic with a GENERIC with all non-available hardware
drivers stripped out with "device fddi" and "device fpa" in the config.
The only things I added to GENERIC after stripping out the unneeded
things was the fddi, the sound, and the openfirmware. The system boots
fine with the
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 01:20:17AM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
[NAT-T patch]
> OK cool, the thing that really turns my off about that IPSec is when I
> reboot with it compiled in says "Expect reduced performance" because its
> not mpsafe.
>
> Also I just tried to compile a kernel with that Nat-T
VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:26:15PM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
Hey All,
When installing the ipsec-tools it says if you want NAT-T you need to
install this patch, http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net/freebsd6-natt.diff
Can any one tell me if this patch works with Fast_i
Hello everyone!
Who can explain me why
BDG_MAX_PORTS 128 (/usr/src/sys/net/bridge.h) have maximum number of
bridge interfaces 128?
Thanks!
P.S. Sorry for my bad eng.
--
With Best Regards,
Victor V. Melnichenko
VVM7-UANIC
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:26:15PM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
> Hey All,
> When installing the ipsec-tools it says if you want NAT-T you need to
> install this patch, http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net/freebsd6-natt.diff
> Can any one tell me if this patch works with Fast_ipsec or is it just
> f
Hey All,
When installing the ipsec-tools it says if you want NAT-T you need to
install this patch, http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net/freebsd6-natt.diff
Can any one tell me if this patch works with Fast_ipsec or is it just
for the other ipsec?
Cheers,
Mike
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:11:18PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> My sk_start() tries to fill the tx ring (to length 512) and then put
> an interrupt mark only on the last fragment in a packet nearest to 32
>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:11:18PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
> Please trim quotes.
>
> >On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:04:26PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> >> To max out the link without unmaxing CPU for other uses, you do have
> >> to know whe
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
Please trim quotes.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:04:26PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> To max out the link without unmaxing CPU for other uses, you do have
> to know when the tx approaches running out of packets. This is best
> done using watermark stu
20 matches
Mail list logo
