Another interesting thing, I did see this before as well.
System freezes in the middle of a NPsctp run. This does not happen when
I run over loopback but occasionally when run over crossover network.
I enabled WITNESS, INVARIANTS and INVARIANTS_SCTP, no complains from any
of them.
I can bre
Brian Candler wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 01:40:13PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
an ng_ip node :-)
I've considerred it.
Then all the tools like 'netstat' and 'route' need modifying to talk to a
netgraph socket, but in principle I don't see why it couldn't be done.
ISTM there are
Brett Glass wrote:
At 08:09 AM 7/24/2006, Marko Zec wrote:
Yes this should work with a virtualized stack - all the "outsied"
interfaces
in each jail / virtual stack could be simply bridged together using
netgraph
which is virtualization-agnostic, i.e. a global facility in the current
impleme
Greetings all:
After much work with Pawel.. I figured out
and fixed/simplified/made better a lot of
what was happening for him...
Turns out he had some of Roberts latest changes
to the sockets code :-0 (which I knew would break SCTP).
Now I have fixed these in the latest patch/and or download.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 09:17:37PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> I've been noodling over this for two weeks now, and am thinking
> that the easiest thing to do might be is map every address in each
> "virtual" router to a unique address from FreeBSD's point of view
> (i.e. 192.168.0.2 on LAN 1 bec
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 05:17, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 08:09 AM 7/24/2006, Marko Zec wrote:
> >Yes this should work with a virtualized stack - all the "outsied"
> > interfaces in each jail / virtual stack could be simply bridged together
> > using netgraph which is virtualization-agnostic, i.e. a g
On Monday 24 July 2006 22:40, Julian Elischer wrote:
...
> >Also, what would really suit him is a netgraph IP interface node - i.e.
> >something which takes raw ethernet frames from the interface, performs IP
> >encapsulation/decapsulation and ARP - and an IP forwarding node with its
> > own forwar
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 14:19, Andre Santos wrote:
> On 7/25/06, Nikos Vassiliadis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (2) the application can run in a jail(8) whose IP address is lo1, in
> > > which case a 'bind to any' will bind to this address only
> >
> > If that could happen without the jail part
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 01:40:13PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> an ng_ip node :-)
> I've considerred it.
Then all the tools like 'netstat' and 'route' need modifying to talk to a
netgraph socket, but in principle I don't see why it couldn't be done.
ISTM there are a zillion userland-to-kernel
On Monday 24 July 2006 16:48, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 12:38:56PM +0300, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
> > Can I somehow use lo1 address
> > for connections initiated from Host_2?
>
> Options I know of:
>
> (1) the application which originates the connection can explicitly bind
> t
10 matches
Mail list logo
