Yes, forwarding is enabled, this machine works like router
- Original Message -
From: "Gilberto Villani Brito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: routing problem?
> Do you have gateway_enable=YES in your /etc/rc.conf
> Look the net.inet.
> Jack Vogel wrote:
> > On 8/30/06, Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> ever since 6.1 I've seen fluctuations in the performance of
> >> the em (Intel(R) PRO/1000 Gigabit Ethernet).
> >>
> >> motherboard OBN (On Board NIC)
> >>
On 9/5/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack Vogel wrote:
> On 9/5/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
>> > Your patch looks good and is the way to go.
>> >
>> > So after Jack confirms that your patch works with the em driver
>> > would you comm
Jack Vogel wrote:
On 9/5/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
> Your patch looks good and is the way to go.
>
> So after Jack confirms that your patch works with the em driver
> would you commit to to -current?
Absolutely. :-)
> The driver related changes can
On 9/5/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
> Andre Oppermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
>>> Jack Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
On 9/2/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't comment on the em part
Do you have gateway_enable=YES in your /etc/rc.conf
Look the net.inet.ip.forwarding:
# sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding
Gilberto
2006/9/1, Mihail Balikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hello,
Running "route -n monitor" I see a lot of strange RTM_MISS messages :
got message of size 96 on Fri Sep 1 1
Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
Andre Oppermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
Jack Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/2/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't comment on the em part but the tcp_output.c stuff looks
very much like a straight port from NetBSD. If
Andre Oppermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
> >Jack Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>On 9/2/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I can't comment on the em part but the tcp_output.c stuff looks
> >>>very much like a straight port from NetBSD. If
Prafulla Deuskar wrote:
Jack Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/2/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't comment on the em part but the tcp_output.c stuff looks
very much like a straight port from NetBSD. If we take code from
the other BSDs we have to remark this in the ema
On 9/5/06, Prafulla Deuskar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jack Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 9/2/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I can't comment on the em part but the tcp_output.c stuff looks
> >very much like a straight port from NetBSD. If we take code from
> >the other
Jack Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 9/2/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I can't comment on the em part but the tcp_output.c stuff looks
> >very much like a straight port from NetBSD. If we take code from
> >the other BSDs we have to remark this in the emails we send with
Jack Vogel wrote:
> On 8/30/06, Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ever since 6.1 I've seen fluctuations in the performance of
>> the em (Intel(R) PRO/1000 Gigabit Ethernet).
>>
>> motherboard OBN (On Board NIC)
>>
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Andrew Sinclair wrote:
$ pciconf -lv
...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:0:0: class=0x02 card=0x00011179 chip=0x436211ab rev=0x15
hdr=0x00
vendor = 'Marvell Semiconductor (Was: Galileo Technology Ltd)'
device = '88E8053 Yukon PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller (copper)'
clas
Attempting to diagnose an undetected NIC:
$ uname -a
FreeBSD FreeSBIE.LiveCD 6.1-RC2 FreeBSD 6.1-RC2 #3:
$ pciconf -lv
...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:0:0: class=0x02 card=0x00011179 chip=0x436211ab rev=0x15
hdr=0x00
vendor = 'Marvell Semiconductor (Was: Galileo Technology Ltd)'
device = '
> em1: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> options=b
> inet 60.1.2.3 netmask 0xfffc broadcast 220.233.99.39
> ether 00:04:23:bc:3a:d1
> media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP )
> status: active
It's quite possibly picking that up from the thing it's plugged into, ie
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On 9/4/06, Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the patch only support kame ipsec. I guess that's the problem. Could
you try it building with kame ipsec instead of fast_ipsec and let us
know if that worked?
That may work okay but then would I loos
16 matches
Mail list logo