On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:02:53PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 09:50:49AM +0200, Daniel Ryslink wrote:
> D> Yesterday, I deployed the Intel driver version 6.1.4 compiled as a
> module,
> D> but the problem still prevails.
> D>
> D> Do you have any other suggestion
On 8/21/06, Pat Lashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, that is IPv4 Link Local Addressing. Zeroconfig includes
that,
> > Multicast DNS, Service Discovery and anything else that removes the
need
> > for manual configuration.
>
> Yeah, I actually know that. It's just that I've developed
> Actually, that is IPv4 Link Local Addressing. Zeroconfig includes that,
> Multicast DNS, Service Discovery and anything else that removes the need
> for manual configuration.
Yeah, I actually know that. It's just that I've developed a bad habit of
calling it zeroconfig in the absence of a short
I checked in a fix for this into -current a few days ago. Haven't MFC'ed
it to releng 6.
mohan
--- Pawel Worach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/22/05, Pawel Worach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pawel Worach wrote:
> >
> > > (kgdb) print *tw
> > > $1 = {tw_inpcb = 0x0, snd_nxt = 438603527, rcv
On 9/22/05, Pawel Worach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pawel Worach wrote:
> (kgdb) print *tw
> $1 = {tw_inpcb = 0x0, snd_nxt = 438603527, rcv_nxt = 3383864561,
> iss = 438603320, irs = 3383863898, cc_recv = 0, cc_send = 0,
> last_win = 65534, tw_so_options = 4, tw_cred = 0x0, t_recent = 0,
>
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 06:28:30PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:58:08PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> > I'm actually trying to marry FreeBSD to PIX. The latter only
> > supports IPSec (tunnel/transport). I'm still struggling with
> > firewalls on bot
Pat Lashley wrote:
In short, zeroconfig allows a host to automatically negotiate
a collision free ip-address with other hosts on the network in the
absence of a DHCP-server. It's suitable for small ad-hoc networks,
or in embedded solutions.
Actually, that is IPv4 Link Local Addressing. Zeroconf
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:23:50AM +0200, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
> [ I'm CC'ing Crist, maybe he can explain why -e behaves like it does ]
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:57:56PM +0300, Rostislav Krasny wrote:
>
> > I've tried the new "-e" traceroute option on today's RELENG_6 and
> > found follow
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
Serious problems
S Tracker Resp. Description
o kern/92552 netA serious bug in most network drivers from 5.X to 6.X
f kern/93220 net[inet
In short, zeroconfig allows a host to automatically negotiate
a collision free ip-address with other hosts on the network in the
absence of a DHCP-server. It's suitable for small ad-hoc networks,
or in embedded solutions.
Actually, that is IPv4 Link Local Addressing. Zeroconfig includes that,
M
Hi all,
A while ago I started hacking on a zeroconfig and multicast DNS
implementation for FreeBSD.
In short, zeroconfig allows a host to automatically negotiate
a collision free ip-address with other hosts on the network in the
absence of a DHCP-server. It's suitable for small ad-hoc networks,
I'm having some problems receiving multicast traffic on my FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE
workstation with VLC.
I get the streams but I seem to get plenty of packetloss on the freebsd box but
on other
boxes on the same network I don't see such problems. I haven't noticed any
packetloss
with unicast.
Any th
Anndrew,
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:45:54PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> On 8/21/06, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >As is has indeed already been stated in this thread, IPSec tunnel mode
> >shunts the routing table. However the new enc(4) interface that Andrew
> >Thompson has i
On 8/21/06, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As is has indeed already been stated in this thread, IPSec tunnel mode
shunts the routing table. However the new enc(4) interface that Andrew
Thompson has imported from OpenBSD allows to filter IPSec traffic in a
more natural way.
My unders
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:58:08PM +0400, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> I'm actually trying to marry FreeBSD to PIX. The latter only
> supports IPSec (tunnel/transport). I'm still struggling with
> firewalls on both sides, but tunnel-tunnel works right now.
> I'm a bit puzzled because the
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:23:50 +0200
Daniel Hartmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ I'm CC'ing Crist, maybe he can explain why -e behaves like it does ]
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:57:56PM +0300, Rostislav Krasny wrote:
>
> > I've tried the new "-e" traceroute option on today's RELENG_6 and
>
Hi Asha,
you have many traffic generators in the benchmark ports directory
(http://www.freebsd.org/ports/benchmarks.html).
I do not know what you are looking for exactly, I was and am sometimes using
Iperf, which is a simple tcp/udp traffic generator supporting IPv4/6.
Best regards,
Julien
- Message transféré
De : Julien Abeillé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé le : Lundi, 21 Août 2006, 12h05mn 49s
Objet : Re : Re : ipv6 in ipv6 tunnel with FreeBSD 4.11
Hi George, all,
I finally found the problem. net.inet6.ip6.gifhlim is set to 0 by default.
Maybe it is
Hi,
We need to test network processor and for this we
have
to test some application like MLPPP, MLFR, etc.
Is there any freely available traffic generators are
available .
Thanks in advance,
Asha
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yaho
[ I'm CC'ing Crist, maybe he can explain why -e behaves like it does ]
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:57:56PM +0300, Rostislav Krasny wrote:
> I've tried the new "-e" traceroute option on today's RELENG_6 and
> found following problem:
>
> > traceroute -nq 1 -e -P TCP -p 80 216.136.204.117
As I und
David,
On 8/19/06, David Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried to use a FE version of the switch (Cisco Catalyst
> C3750), and a
> single-port version of the said NIC, with the same results
> (auto detect
> fails, and can only live with intermittent forced 100baseTX
> full-duplex).
21 matches
Mail list logo
