Synopsis: [patch] ppp(8) should be able to set ethernet address for PPPoE
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Jun 28 05:54:16 UTC 2007
Responsible-Changed-Why:
I think this is more something for the networking team, re
Mike Tancsa wrote:
How does MPD perform terminating L2TP connections, ie as an
LNS ?
What do you mean by how? IMO possible ansers: well, fast, using
ng_ksockat and ng_l2tp nodes, alike PPTP, ... Choose any. :)
Can it also terminate a few hundred L2TP connections as
efficiently as
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:50:23 +0300, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
>As example, this functionality allows mpd to implement real LAC with
>accepting incoming PPPoE connection from client and forwarding it using
>L2TP tunnel to LNS. All other software L2TP implementations I know is
>only a LA
Julian Elischer wrote:
Even if pppoe have some DoS weaknesses it also have some protection
mechanisms against it. It's a pity but ng_pppoe originally implements
protocol in a way which does not allow this protection to be effectively
used.
ng_pppoe can always be rewritten :-)
Surely, there ar
Henri Hennebert wrote:
I'm glad to present version 4.2 of MPD. It includes many new features,
performance improvements and fixes.
I try it for my pppoe adsl connection and I find that On
FreeBSD-RELEASE, set iface route default add a route to 0/32 which is
not valid as default route. I try 0.
Alexander Motin wrote:
Even if pppoe have some DoS weaknesses it also have some protection
mechanisms against it. It's a pity but ng_pppoe originally implements
protocol in a way which does not allow this protection to be effectively
used.
ng_pppoe can always be rewritten :-)
As I have tol
Alexander Motin wrote:
Hi.
I'm glad to present version 4.2 of MPD. It includes many new features,
performance improvements and fixes.
I try it for my pppoe adsl connection and I find that On
FreeBSD-RELEASE, set iface route default add a route to 0/32 which is
not valid as default route. I
At Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:48:56 + (UTC),
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Can we please drop the FAST_ prefix along with the old IPSEC when we
> > get to that point ?
>
> yes, I think that is gnn's plan. I was a bit worried because it'll be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ovi wrote:
> I am not very familiar with BGP (but I will learn), my question is: did
> you use multiple pppoe servers with different subnet for every pppoe
> server,
> or you have high availability with every serverer giving IPs from the
> same pool of
Dear Alexander
Thank yoo for your email, it is very interesting.
I am not very familiar with BGP (but I will learn), my question is: did
you use multiple pppoe servers with different subnet for every pppoe server,
or you have high availability with every serverer giving IPs from the
same pool o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ovi wrote:
> Also as you know
> PPPoE is vulnerable to arp poisoning and to DoSs. Having a small network
> with 10-20 computers using mpd is easy, but having 2000 users or more,
> things changes, problems appears. Solving arp poisoning or DoS attack
>
Maxim Zenin did some effort to create such templates. His work was done on 3.18
version of mpd mainly for PPPoE server usage.
You can see his work at http://www.foggy.ru/soft/mpd/
It may be useful for the future development.
_
From: Nikolay Pavlov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alexander
Alexander Motin wrote:
Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
This is probably a new feature request, but is this possible to create
some kind of VirtualTemplate interface like it is in Cisco access
routers. Currently i have to configure bunch of different ng interfaces
for every kind user. However on my Cisco
Alexander Motin wrote:
Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
This is probably a new feature request, but is this possible to create
some kind of VirtualTemplate interface like it is in Cisco access
routers. Currently i have to configure bunch of different ng interfaces
for every kind user. However on my Cisco
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Hi,
Can we please drop the FAST_ prefix along with the old IPSEC when we
get to that point ?
yes, I think that is gnn's plan. I was a bit worried because it'll be
confusing that IPSEC->gone and FAST_IPSEC->IPSEC but hey IPSEC is gone;-)
Don't kno
On Tuesday, 26 June 2007 at 18:31:30 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
> >On Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 2:25:22 +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
> >>Nikolay Pavlov wrote:
> >>>This is probably a new feature request, but is this possible to create
> >>>some kind of VirtualTemplate
David Christensen wrote:
Tom,
There's already some debug code to watch for unusual size packets.
If you can recompile the driver from HEAD with the attached diffs
we can printout the first 128 bytes of any unusual sized packets.
This does enabled other debugging code so performance will drop
bu
Can I ask a really fundamental question:
Names like "newbus", "SMPng", "FAST_IPSEC" and similar grow really silly
over time, because the attribute they carry in their name gets outdated.
Once FAST_IPSEC replaces IPSEC, what is it faster than ?
Can we please drop the FAST_ prefix along with the
Hi,
I have been hacking on, testing and fixing the FAST_IPSEC code with
support for IPv6 for a while now. There are still some issues to be
worked out in the v6 integration but the v4 code is solid, in that it
passes the full TAHI test suite. I intend to integrate this code into
HEAD (I already
19 matches
Mail list logo
