Re: CARP + VLAN = kernel dump

At Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:05:04 -0800, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > > Hi, > > If I enable carp on a vlan interface in rc.conf the kernel goes > boom. This is 6.2-RC from a couple of weeks ago. (IIRC then I had > the same problem setting up carp on a bridge'd interface). > > I'm configuring it li

Re: IPv6 link-local routes disappear in 6.2-RC1

At Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:03:00 -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > > [1 ] > If memory serves me right, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:27:53 +0100, > > Daniel Dvořák wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> > >> > >> I want back ipv6 link-local routes back, do you know how to do that > >> ? I h

Re: addition to ipfw..

On Friday 15 December 2006 22:20, Julian Elischer wrote: > Max, further to your comment.. > > Max Laier wrote: > > On Monday 11 December 2006 23:58, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> Andre Oppermann wrote: > >>> Julian Elischer wrote: > in ipfw layer 2 processing, the packet is passed to the firewal

RE: IPv6 link-local routes disappear in 6.2-RC1

Okay thanks I see it now. I would like to note that 6.2 release notes officially does not exist yet in nowadays. -Original Message- From: Bruce A. Mah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 1:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; freebsd-net@freebsd.org

Re: IPv6 link-local routes disappear in 6.2-RC1

If memory serves me right, Daniel Dvořák wrote: > Of course not, because in May and before may and before RC1 it was not needed > at all to have ipv6_enable="YES" to have link-local routes. > > So what needed ? I do not understand. > > auto_linklocal or ipv6_enable ? ipv6_enable="YES" This is

RE: IPv6 link-local routes disappear in 6.2-RC1

Of course not, because in May and before may and before RC1 it was not needed at all to have ipv6_enable="YES" to have link-local routes. So what needed ? I do not understand. auto_linklocal or ipv6_enable ? -Original Message- From: Bruce A. Mah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday,

ipf : Does RPC port auto-adding interface exist?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I hate sort of cross-posting like this, but I haven't received any word back from anyone on the -questions list yet.. Anyhow, I was wondering if some sort of interface existed with ipf already where ipf would automatically add b

Re: addition to ipfw..

Max, further to your comment.. Max Laier wrote: On Monday 11 December 2006 23:58, Julian Elischer wrote: Andre Oppermann wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: in ipfw layer 2 processing, the packet is passed to the firewall as if it was a layer 3 IP packet but the ether header is also made available.

Re: Runtime control for the IPFIREWALL_FORWARD

Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: Hi, All! I want get the IPFIREWALL_FORWARD feature without a kernel rebuild. And use forwarding with the ipfw kld. It's possible to have this functional in the base system? If yes, then which is preferred way: sysctl or kld? This introduces quite a bit of extra co

Runtime control for the IPFIREWALL_FORWARD

Hi, All! I want get the IPFIREWALL_FORWARD feature without a kernel rebuild. And use forwarding with the ipfw kld. It's possible to have this functional in the base system? If yes, then which is preferred way: sysctl or kld? -- WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov __

Re: IPv6 link-local routes disappear in 6.2-RC1

If memory serves me right, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:27:53 +0100, > Daniel Dvořák wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I want back ipv6 link-local routes back, do you know how to do that >> ? I hope this significant change will be in release document for >> 6.2. I did not change

Re: stop bittorrents

On Thursday 14 December 2006 20:25, Baldur Gislason wrote: > Most of the torrent clients do encrypted sessions nowadays so they > really are impossible to detect by simply parsing the packets. > > Baldur > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 02:08:41AM +0200, Ivo Vachkov wrote: > > I'm not familiar with bitt