Thanks for your update (Sep6_2007) in your website. It simply works fine.
Comparing with sctp_asconf.c of 6.1 patch, I found that sending ASCONF chunk
was only timer based where in the updated version, it is sent immediately.
Basically I am porting SCTP from freebsd to a RTOS to test some algorith
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Andre Oppermann wrote:
There are no NICs known that can do packet forwarding offload.
And neither is there support in FreeBSD for that. You're probably
confusing this with checksum offloading or TSO (TCP segmentation
offloading) which isn't an issue with packet forwarding
> This is not the case. Flood ping doesn't reach the limit in any
> way. Have a look at the ping man page and flood ping description.
Ah yes, I was forgetting about the strict synchrony.
> Stock FreeBSD 6.2 or 7.0 can easily do 500kpps with good network
> cards and fastforwarding enabled. On a
Mike Tancsa wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:12:06 +0200, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
After many years of good services we will stop using FreeBSD 4.x :)
During my performance regression tests under FreeBSD 6.2 i've found
that polling has lower performance than interrupt.
To solve that
> > > Internet ettiquette demands being gracious in what you accept.
> > > The default policy of FreeBSD is to accept such packets.
> > > This is a really weird bug to track down.
> > > Other drivers support it.
> > >
> > > This isn't worth making a stand over, unless you're trying
> > > to hold u
* David Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070907 13:41] wrote:
> > > I'm not completely opposed to making such a change, but I don't want
> > > to make a default change in the driver's behavior that other people
> > > may be depending upon (whether they are aware of it or not). A
> > > tunable dri
Bakul Shah wrote:
One of my concern is on the native forwarding capability of FreeBSD OS and the
execution of critical userland processes. I have experience before that a
FreeBSD box configured as router appears to slow down the userland processes
when the traffic load is high. I have verified th
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:12:06 +0200, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
>After many years of good services we will stop using FreeBSD 4.x :)
>During my performance regression tests under FreeBSD 6.2 i've found
>that polling has lower performance than interrupt.
>To solve that issue i've rewritt
Synopsis: can not set wi channel on current
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Sep 7 21:45:57 UTC 2007
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=116186
__
Synopsis: if_iwi driver leads system to reboot
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Sep 7 21:45:47 UTC 2007
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=116185
___
> > I'm not completely opposed to making such a change, but I don't want
> > to make a default change in the driver's behavior that other people
> > may be depending upon (whether they are aware of it or not). A
> > tunable driver value could be the answer but I'm not entirely sure
> > how it wou
> One of my concern is on the native forwarding capability of FreeBSD OS and the
> execution of critical userland processes. I have experience before that a
> FreeBSD box configured as router appears to slow down the userland processes
> when the traffic load is high. I have verified this lately on
* David Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070907 10:48] wrote:
> > > It could certainly be argued by some that Cisco is not standards
> > > compliant in this case for sending an oversized Ethernet frame
> > > and expecting everyone to accept it. Hardware has limitations
> > > and assuming that all
Kirc Gover wrote:
Hi Gary, Thanks for your response.
Yes, the bus architecture would be either PCI-X or PCI-Express. Host CPU would
be a high performance multi-core such as Xeon and NICs would be Intel.
One of my concern is on the native forwarding capability of FreeBSD OS and the execution
o
On 2007-09-07 16:57, "Bruce M. Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Judge wrote:
>> Hi,
>> While making some changes to the routing table on one of our routers
>> today I noticed that "route add" was showing some strange
>> behaviour. When adding a route for 128/8 to the table rather than
>> a
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Why not set the mtu on the net and host routes to 1500 to make it all
work? I forget if my route mtu code is in 6.2, but it'll be in 7.0...
I think it is..
took us ages to figure out why some client machines hit this and
others didn't. turned out that there were MTUs
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote this message on Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 18:14 -0700:
David Christensen wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
Ok which clever person did this again?
It just broke our product.
If it hasn't been removed from 7.0 and 6.x yet it's just
about to be...
on the
Hi Gary, Thanks for your response.
Yes, the bus architecture would be either PCI-X or PCI-Express. Host CPU would
be a high performance multi-core such as Xeon and NICs would be Intel.
One of my concern is on the native forwarding capability of FreeBSD OS and the
execution of critical userland
Hi Louis, Thanks for your response. I appreciate it a lot.
The router would be deployed at the service provider network that will
terminate roughly 4000 (maximum) individual customers and corporate
networks/VPNs. We have decided to integrate control plane, data plane and
management plane functi
> > It could certainly be argued by some that Cisco is not standards
> > compliant in this case for sending an oversized Ethernet frame
> > and expecting everyone to accept it. Hardware has limitations
> > and assuming that all Ethernet controllers can support frames
> > greater than 1522 bytes is
Julian Elischer wrote this message on Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 18:14 -0700:
> David Christensen wrote:
> >>Julian Elischer wrote:
> >>>Ok which clever person did this again?
> >>>
> >>>It just broke our product.
> >>>If it hasn't been removed from 7.0 and 6.x yet it's just
> >>about to be...
> >>
> >>
Hi,
Has anyone had experience playing with the 82572GI PCIe cards under FreeBSD?
We had bunch of cards from two vendors, a few server adapter cards, but most of
them
client adapter cards
(http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/products/prodbrf/pro1000_pt_desktop_adapter.pdf)
They all had
Tom Judge wrote:
Hi,
While making some changes to the routing table on one of our routers
today I noticed that "route add" was showing some strange behaviour.
When adding a route for 128/8 to the table rather than adding
128.0.0.0/8 it would add 0.0.0.0/8, however adding 10/9 works correctly.
Kirc Gover wrote:
We are in the stage of planning and research for a commercial development of an
edge router that will be based mostly on OpenSource software. I would like to
solicit for information and recommendation if FreeBSD is a suitable OS. The
router is expected to withstand forwarding
On 9/6/07, Erich Dollansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wesley Griffin wrote:
> >
> > but I get the following output:
> > -
> > Current value 0x0013 will change to 0x0010
> > Retrying eeprom write!
> > Retrying eeprom write!
> > [snip lots of this message]
> > EEPROM write failed
>
> th
Hi,
While making some changes to the routing table on one of our routers
today I noticed that "route add" was showing some strange behaviour.
When adding a route for 128/8 to the table rather than adding
128.0.0.0/8 it would add 0.0.0.0/8, however adding 10/9 works correctly.
Is this a bug i
Dear all:
Recently I am tracing the codes of ip6_forward(), which is defined in
ip6_forward.c. My referenced version is FreeBSD Release 6.1. I have the
following questions about IPsec operations:
(1) lines 489-512 are about the transmission of ICMP Packet Too Big
message. Is it necessary her
Synopsis: Network / ipv6 recursive mutex panic
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Sep 7 08:45:35 UTC 2007
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=116172
___
28 matches
Mail list logo
