On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Morning,
At Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:49:37 +0200,
Peter Blok wrote:
Hi George,
Is somebody looking at ipsec-tools? As far as I can see it requires a
lot of kame definitions, although not used most of the times. I have
tried to make sense of this, but
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
Very brief example (just to show main idea).
Assume you have thre interfaces in router fxp0 - lan, fxp1 - adsl1, fxp2 -
adsl2.
fxp0 - 192.168.0.1, fxp1 - 192.168.1.2, fxp2 - 192.168.2.2
adsl1 - 192.168.1.1, adsl2 - 192.
At Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:49:37 +0200,
Peter Blok wrote:
>
> Hi George,
>
> Is somebody looking at ipsec-tools? As far as I can see it requires a
> lot of kame definitions, although not used most of the times. I have
> tried to make sense of this, but it wasn't easy.
I am not right now, if you have
--On Thursday, July 12, 2007 16:11:11 -0700 David Christensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave, perhaps you could answer my question?
I'm using the 0.9.6 driver with 6.1 RELEASE. I don't use
jumbo frames, so
the only problem I've experienced is the link state going up and down
occasionally.
D
> Dave, perhaps you could answer my question?
>
> I'm using the 0.9.6 driver with 6.1 RELEASE. I don't use
> jumbo frames, so
> the only problem I've experienced is the link state going up and down
> occasionally.
>
> Does the more current driver solve the link state problem?
> If it does,
--On Thursday, July 12, 2007 15:10:31 -0700 David Christensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sorry I haven't been able to get to the root of your problems
Tom. My biggest challenge is trying to duplicate the a loaded system
which seems to be an important component of the failure you're seeing.
> Firstly I am not trying to slate David's efforts, however
> there are and
> have been some big problems with the driver.
>
> As for the IPMI integration, our management controllers are
> set to used
> the remote access controller NIC (Set as dedicated in the
> bios) rather
> than share the
Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
Very brief example (just to show main idea).
Assume you have thre interfaces in router fxp0 - lan, fxp1 - adsl1, fxp2
- adsl2.
fxp0 - 192.168.0.1, fxp1 - 192.168.1.2, fxp2 - 192.168.2.2
adsl1 - 192.168.1.1, adsl2 - 192.168.2.1
$server="192.168.0.2"
$adsl1="192.16
Hello,
Did something change in 6.2? If my mtu size on rl0 is 1280 it won't
accept a larger incomming packet.
kernel: rl0: discard oversize frame (ether type 800 flags 3 len 1514 > max
1294)
I don't think it worked this way in the past.
Won't this affect pmtud?
man page for ifconfig says mtu l
Josh Paetzel ha scritto:
errrm, in pf I can give you a concrete example of how to deal with
this.
Thank you very much. Please see also my reply to Artyom.
Your question seemed to imply that you don't want to load-balance or
really even do round-robin NAT and you're fine with manually cutti
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL routers:
default gateway is set to the first and, in case of failure, is moved to
the other one. This works perfectly for outgoing connections: in the
event of the switch, I'll have to reconnect, but tha
Здравствуйте, .
-- Пересылаемое письмо --
От: Archie Cobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
К: KES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
А также к:
Время создания: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:46:10 -0500
Тема:NEW IDEAS (NETGRAPH)
Прикрепленные файлы:
Tom Judge wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
Tom Judge wrote:
Josh Paetzel wrote:
On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Tom Judge wrote:
Hi Paul,
From the testing that I have been doing for the last few months
the driver in 6.2 is stable if you are not using jumbo frames and
there is a light-moderate netwo
Gary Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Tom Judge wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
Tom Judge wrote:
Josh Paetzel wrote:
On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Tom Judge wrote:
Hi Paul,
From the testing that I have been doing for the last few months
the driver in 6.2 is stable if you a
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Tom Judge wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> >Tom Judge wrote:
> >>Josh Paetzel wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Tom Judge wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> From the testing that I have been doing for the last few months
> the driver in 6.2 is st
Doug Ambrisko wrote:
Tom Judge writes:
|
| I am very surprised at that. The driver in 6.1 was un-usable in our
| environment. 6.2 makes it usable with standard frames under moderate
| load. However use jumbo frames and it all falls apart, and unfortunately
| the network these systems are pl
Tom Judge writes:
| Julian Elischer wrote:
| > Tom Judge wrote:
| >> Josh Paetzel wrote:
| >>> On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Tom Judge wrote:
| Hi Paul,
|
| From the testing that I have been doing for the last few months
| the driver in 6.2 is stable if you are not using jumbo fra
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
You have to enforce simmetrical routing on your FreeBSD box.
You can use, for example, PF firewall Using such options and features
as labels and route-to/reply-to statemens.
Also it is possible with ipfw, but I prefer PF. :)
Thanks, this i
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL routers:
default gateway is set to the first and, in case of failure, is moved to
the other one. This works perfectly for outgoing connections: in the
event of the switch, I'll have to reconnect, but tha
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
> > You have to enforce simmetrical routing on your FreeBSD box.
> > You can use, for example, PF firewall Using such options and
> > features as labels and route-to/reply-to statemens.
> >
> > Also it is possible with
Eric F Crist ha scritto:
> The biggest problem one would have with this sort of setup, is the
upstream provider support. I don't know of any ISP's that are going to
be willing or even able to propagate routes for your static IPs through
their DSL systems. If you want that sort of redundancy
Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
You have to enforce simmetrical routing on your FreeBSD box.
You can use, for example, PF firewall Using such options and features
as labels and route-to/reply-to statemens.
Also it is possible with ipfw, but I prefer PF. :)
Thanks, this is interesting. However I
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL routers:
default gateway is set to the first and, in case of failure, is moved to
the other one. This works perfectly for outgoing connections: in the
event of the switch, I'll have to reconnect, but tha
On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:14 AMJul 12, 2007, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL
routers: default gateway is set to the first and, in case of
failure, is moved to the other one. This works perfectly for
outgoing connections: in the event o
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL routers:
default gateway is set to the first and, in case of failure, is moved to
the other one. This works perfectly for outgoing connections: in the
event of the switch, I'll have to reconnect, but that's acceptable.
The pro
Julian Elischer wrote:
Tom Judge wrote:
Josh Paetzel wrote:
On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Tom Judge wrote:
Hi Paul,
From the testing that I have been doing for the last few months
the driver in 6.2 is stable if you are not using jumbo frames and
there is a light-moderate network load.
However
26 matches
Mail list logo
