On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Yes problem was in firewall, not Solaris/FreeBSD tcp stacks.
On Solaris was used ipfilter 3.4.18, and after 3.4.18 was fixed several bugs,
which can cause such problems.
Probably this:
4.1.17 - Released 20 January 2007
fix tracking TCP windo
Try just treating the modem's ethernet as though it were a local
router port, using (unless they've assigned you a fixed address)
DHCP. If your ISP is like mine, the PPPOA and 1483 stuff is
between the modem and their router and invisible to you.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 07:50:54PM -0600, Kim Shri
I am wondering if the following is possible.
My local ISP only uses pppoa for their DSL customers. They
have provided me with an Actiontec GT701 DSL modem. I want
to configure the modem to use RFC 1483 transparent bridging.
This modem has both an ethernet and USB interface for the
LAN connectio
I'm seeing a problem where a much faster quad-core host running RELENG_7
serves many fewer netrate/http requests per second (175/sec) than an
old, busy, UP 6.0 host (828/sec). The problem seems to be related to
latency and connection setup, as it shows up dramatically over a link
with 50-60 ms late
On 25.10.2007 20:59, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
As silby@ already pointed out to me, try changing TCP_MAX_WINSHIFT in
src/sys/netinet/tcp.h to 4.
With TCP_MAX_WINSHIFT 4 it works.
I have a fix for this already in HEAD, I'll merge it to releng_7 to
Hi.
I was wondering about the possibility of adding support for QinQ
("Double tagged frames" / "Nested vlans"). Attached is a patch against
-STABLE to add this support. I have not tested this but was told it
should work.
Would it be possible to get this into CURRENT?
//Jon
--- if_vlan.c.orig
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:17:37PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to get proxy arp to work. Is
there some magic.
I've been using proxy ARP on FreeBSD between 4.x and 6.2 without problems
(though I think I skipped 6.1).
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 02:17:37PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
>I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to get proxy arp to work. Is
>there some magic.
I've been using proxy ARP on FreeBSD between 4.x and 6.2 without problems
(though I think I skipped 6.1).
>I have the following setup isp
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
As silby@ already pointed out to me, try changing TCP_MAX_WINSHIFT in
src/sys/netinet/tcp.h to 4.
With TCP_MAX_WINSHIFT 4 it works.
I have a fix for this already in HEAD, I'll merge it to releng_7 tonight.
But from other host with RELENG_7 tcp
On 25.10.2007 15:01, Rui Paulo wrote:
On 25 Oct 2007, at 11:24, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
I can't connect from FreeBSD 7 box to Solaris 9. While between
FreeBSD6 and Solaris 9 tcp work fine.
I run on FreeBSD, and it nod't work:
$ fetch -o /dev/null http://mail6:8274 fetch: transfer time
Stephen Clark wrote:
Hello List,
I must be doing something wrong. I can't seem to get proxy arp to work.
Is there some
magic.
I have the following setup isp router 205.x.x.1 <-> 205.x.x.100/25 rl1
freebsd vr0 205.x.x.129/25
<-> 205.x.x.193/25
arp -an
(205.x.x.1) at 00:13:7f:5a:b5:50 on rl1
Garrett Cooper wrote:
Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Just to clarify, how are the two hooked together? Is it over
gigabit switch, a 10mbps hub, or directly cabled together?
-Mike
Sure. They're both connected over a gigabit switch, but the Windows
dri
On 25 Oct 2007, at 11:24, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
I can't connect from FreeBSD 7 box to Solaris 9. While between
FreeBSD6 and Solaris 9 tcp work fine.
I run on FreeBSD, and it nod't work:
$ fetch -o /dev/null http://mail6:8274 fetch: transfer timed out
OS versions:
FreeBSD citrin.ram
I can't connect from FreeBSD 7 box to Solaris 9. While between FreeBSD6 and
Solaris 9 tcp work fine.
I run on FreeBSD, and it nod't work:
$ fetch -o /dev/null http://mail6:8274
fetch: transfer timed out
OS versions:
FreeBSD citrin.rambler.stack.net 7.0-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE
LiuJiusheng wrote:
Linux takes 6.6.6.2 as gateway for route 4.4.4/24. But some Oses have the
gateway 2.2.2.2. (treat 4.4.4/24 as a recursive route).
Is there any standard for this?
No, this is entirely implementation specific. Some implementations of IP
forwarding resolve the next-hop recur
15 matches
Mail list logo