John-Mark Gurney a écrit :
Martin Turgeon wrote this message on Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:55 -0500:
I'm not sure if this is really a bug but it doesn't look all fine to me.
When I do a /etc/rc.d/netif restart it does restart the network
interfaces but doesn't replace the default route that
Kevin Downey a écrit :
On 2/21/07, Martin Turgeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is really a bug but it doesn't look all fine to me.
When I do a /etc/rc.d/netif restart it does restart the network
interfaces but doesn't replace the default route that it just erased
even if
Martin Turgeon wrote this message on Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:55 -0500:
> I'm not sure if this is really a bug but it doesn't look all fine to me.
> When I do a /etc/rc.d/netif restart it does restart the network
> interfaces but doesn't replace the default route that it just erased
> even if it
Synopsis: Broadcom WLAN driver 4.100.15.5 doesn't work with Ndisgen
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Feb 21 20:36:28 UTC 2007
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=
Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
> > Wrong: the implied "check-state" done by the "limit" lets the connection
> > through (i.e. performs the action) iff there's state recorded for it
> > (src-addr+src-port+dst-addr+dst-port). If however it's a
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is really a bug but it doesn't look all fine to me.
When I do a /etc/rc.d/netif restart it does restart the network
interfaces but doesn't replace the default route that it just erased
even if it is specified in rc.conf correctly. I found that I should also
restart ro
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:50:27PM +, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NetworkRfcCompliance
before it is too late to change, maybe it is the case to
spell RFC as all capital letters ?
It would surely be better named NetworkStandardsCompliance as
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:50:27PM +, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/NetworkRfcCompliance
before it is too late to change, maybe it is the case to
spell RFC as all capital letters ?
As it is now, i misread it as NetworkRfCompliance and thought
it was something related to rad
--- "Bruce M. Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> satimis wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > FreeBSD-6.2-amd64
> > ...
> > The onboard NIC seems not detected.
> >
> In the absence of required information, I speculate your machine has
> msk(4) or another recent chipset which may be supported in
>
http://wiki.freebsd.org/NetworkRfcCompliance
Please begin wiki-whacking!
BMS
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Alex Povolotsky wrote:
And, again, please show me your mpd.conf
Attached.
--
Alexander Motin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Optima Telecom
default:
log -bund -fsm -lcp
set console ip 127.0.0.1
set console user xxx yyy
set console open
set netflow node netflow
Alexander Motin wrote:
Alex Povolotsky wrote:
Hmm... May I ask you to show your dmesg, kernel config and mpd
configs? I have heard several rumors about system lockup with mpd.
I have heard only one and that person answered me that problem was
solved by avoiding of routing loop, when tunnel t
Alex Povolotsky wrote:
Hmm... May I ask you to show your dmesg, kernel config and mpd configs?
I have heard several rumors about system lockup with mpd.
I have heard only one and that person answered me that problem was
solved by avoiding of routing loop, when tunnel traffic was routed
insid
Alexander Motin wrote:
Alex Povolotsky wrote:
Is there anybody here who can say "I'm running mpd with 400 pptp
connections, and it works without a flaw"?
I am running >100 mpd servers, and they work without a flaw.
I mean 400 ACTIVE connections.
And I have >10k PPPoE users and some amount
Alex Povolotsky wrote:
Is there anybody here who can say "I'm running mpd with 400 pptp
connections, and it works without a flaw"?
I am running >100 mpd servers, and they work without a flaw.
I mean 400 ACTIVE connections.
And I have >10k PPPoE users and some amount of PPTP. I have >700 ACT
Hello Alex,
Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 6:35:14 PM, you wrote:
AP> RELATIVELY easy. It happens about once a day or more often; but it
AP> requires someone to press Reset.
I had the same problem with mpd4.0b3 and mpd4.0b4 and Freebsd built
from RELENG_6 branch at the beggining of the year. I used
Hi list,
A late followup on this issue. Due to physical location constraints
and production environment, I finally have the chance to relook into
this issue. I'm planning to perform these actions tomorrow:-
1. Apply Doug's IPMI patches from
http://www.ambrisko.com/doug/bge_ipmi.patch (actually t
Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
> > Wrong: the implied "check-state" done by the "limit" lets the connection
> > through (i.e. performs the action) iff there's state recorded for it
> > (src-addr+src-port+dst-addr+dst-port). If however it's a
18 matches
Mail list logo
