sorry, neglected to include /etc/ipfw.rules
# egrep -v '^(#|$)' /etc/ipfw.rules
flush
add deny log all from any to any ipoptions ssrr,lsrr,rr
add pass tcp from me to 666.42.0.62 smtp
add deny log tcp from any to any smtp
add deny all from any to me auth
nat 42 config if vr0 log
add nat 42 ip4 from
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
> ok, i have bridging working (kernel/userland version skew likely culprit,
> thanks max),
> except that ath0 does not seem to completely bridge. bms may have warned me
> in saying
>
> > although you won't get the 802.11 frames bridged.
I'm wondering
Julian Elischer wrote:
Petri Helenius wrote:
How about routing domain or forwarding domain?
which shortens too
rdom / rd ?
fd would be quite overloaded acronym.
vrf would work for me too. Quite accepted industry term.
Pete
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freeb
ok, i have bridging working (kernel/userland version skew likely culprit,
thanks max),
except that ath0 does not seem to completely bridge. bms may have warned me in
saying
> although you won't get the 802.11 frames bridged.
---
the problem:
o hosts on vr1, vr2, and vr3 get dhcp addresses an
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Chris Dillon wrote:
> Quoting Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
> > e.g. if you are usinghe second routing table, you could say I've set xxx
> > to 1
> > (0 based)..
> >
> >
> > current;
I use ifconfig vlanXXX name ... for setting interfaces names that make
sense for me (for example name of parity on remote side on this link).
But when i run netstat -iW interface names striped to 7 symbols, though
"If -W is also present, print interface names using a wider field size".
I think that
> 3) Most likely candidate: Your userland and kernel are out of sync. Try
> to rebuild ifconfig with the same headers installed as your kernel was
> built.
rebuilt all to current cvsup of current. can now bridge. on to trying
to make the ath happy with the bridge.
randy
___
> >> and the command should be called ""
> >
> > We called it vhost since to all other hosts it behaved like a
> > host on a network. In our implementation each virtual host
> > had a set of interfaces and one routing table and you could
> > actually "route" packets between these hosts among
> I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
>
> setuniverse 1 netstat -rn
> [shows table 1]
> setuniverse 2 route add 10.0.0.0/24 192.168.2.1
> setuinverse 1 route add 10.0.0.0/24 192.168.3.1
> setuniverse 2 route -n get 10.0.0.3
> [shows 192.168.2.1]
> setuniver
Bakul Shah wrote:
I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
setuniverse 1 netstat -rn
[shows table 1]
setuniverse 2 route add 10.0.0.0/24 192.168.2.1
setuinverse 1 route add 10.0.0.0/24 192.168.3.1
setuniverse 2 route -n get 10.0.0.3
[shows 192.168.2.1]
setuni
Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Max Laier wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality. It's done that
Chris Dillon wrote:
I think you just said it best yourself, you need a name for a "network
view", so why not just call it a "view"? Other things use the same
terminology like a DNS "view" or an SQL "view" and I think it makes
sense in this case as well.
Call it a vista ... hahaha, I kill my
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 10:54:29PM +, Peter Wood wrote:
> > rtab? rtbl?
> >
> > and the command should be called ""
>
> Would "vrf" (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) be to technical? From
> experience Cisco's call it vrf, Junipers use routing-instance IIRC.
Instance is a good name for it.
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Max Laier wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> >> the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> >> functionality. It's done that w
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:35 PM
> To: FreeBSD Net
> Subject: bikeshed for all!
>
> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> the first version is a mi
Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs
(I hope).
Later
Quoting Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I need a word to use to describe the network view one is currently on..
e.g. if you are usinghe second routing table, you could say I've set xxx to 1
(0 based)..
current;y in my code I'm using 'universe' but I don't like that..
I think you just sa
* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 15:13] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >try using "instance".
> >
> >"Oh I'm going to use the FOO routing instance."
>
> what do Juniper call it?
"Instance" and "vrf".
-Alfred
>
> >
> >Works nicely.
> >
> >* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [0
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 02:34:37PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> functionality.
> It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs (I
> hope).
> L
Max Laier wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality. It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without
breaking ABIs (I hope). Later
Peter Wood wrote:
> so, you see I really need a better name
> setrtab?
>
> rtab? rtbl?
>
> and the command should be called ""
Would "vrf" (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) be to technical? From
experience Cisco's call it vrf, Junipers use routing-instance IIRC.
P.
I'm reservi
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
try using "instance".
"Oh I'm going to use the FOO routing instance."
what do Juniper call it?
Works nicely.
* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 14:34] wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact
Petri Helenius wrote:
How about routing domain or forwarding domain?
which shortens too
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
___
fr
* Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 15:09] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> >the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> >functionality.
> >It's done that way so I can put it i
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs (I
hope).
Later there will be a more fl
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> functionality. It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without
> breaking ABIs (I hope). Later there will b
How about routing domain or forwarding domain?
Pete
Julian Elischer wrote:
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs
(I hope
* Peter Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 14:53] wrote:
> > so, you see I really need a better name
> > setrtab?
> >
> > rtab? rtbl?
> >
> > and the command should be called ""
>
> Would "vrf" (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) be to technical? From
> experience Cisco's call it vrf, Junipers
> so, you see I really need a better name
> setrtab?
>
> rtab? rtbl?
>
> and the command should be called ""
Would "vrf" (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) be to technical? From
experience Cisco's call it vrf, Junipers use routing-instance IIRC.
P.
--
Peter Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_
try using "instance".
"Oh I'm going to use the FOO routing instance."
Works nicely.
* Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071212 14:34] wrote:
> So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
> the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited
> functionality.
> It's
So, I'm playing with some multiple routing table support..
the first version is a minimal impact version with very limited functionality.
It's done that way so I can put it in RELENG_6/7 without breaking ABIs (I hope).
Later there will be a more flexible version for-current.
Here's the question..
The following reply was made to PR kern/112654; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Andy Farkas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/112654: [pcn] [patch] Kernel panic upon if_pcn module load on
a Netfinity 5000
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:26:18 +1000
On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
> the symptom
>
> # ifconfig bridge0 192.168.0.1 addm vr1 addm vr2 addm vr3 addm ath0 up
> ifconfig: BRDGADD vr1: Invalid argument
EINVAL can be returned from BRDGADD for three reasons:
1) The MTU on the member interfaces don't match (the first mem
> My last shot in the dark before They Who Know if_bridge get back from
> the nightclub .. Randy, just to rule ath in or out as prime suspect,
> does it come up right if you only specify the vr interfaces?
no
randy
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing li
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> My shot from the hip, although I'm pretty much away from this stuff at
> the moment.
>
> Randy Bush wrote:
> > # ifconfig bridge0 addm ath0 addm vr1 up
> > ifconfig: BRDGADD ath0: Invalid argument
> >
> ath0 is IFT_ETHER, so it should be O
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 12:31:00PM +0400, rihad wrote:
> >Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:21:17AM +0400, rihad wrote:
> >>> And if I _only_ want to shape IP traffic to given speed, without
> >>> prioritizing anything, do I still n
Julian Elischer wrote:
I think that breaking the arp code from the routing code
need to proceed.
I agree wholeheartedly. The coupling of the ARP code to the forwarding
code in the BSDs has been largely historical. Other implementations have
done this, and it generally simplifies the layer 3
My shot from the hip, although I'm pretty much away from this stuff at
the moment.
Randy Bush wrote:
# ifconfig bridge0 addm ath0 addm vr1 up
ifconfig: BRDGADD ath0: Invalid argument
ath0 is IFT_ETHER, so it should be OK to attach it to the bridge --
although you won't
get the 802.11 frame
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:35 PM, rihad wrote:
This ipfw manpage section was the reason I asked (sorry for the
formatting). What's with the "queuing delay" part? I'm totally confused.
queue {slots | sizeKbytes}
Queue size, in slots or KBytes. Default value is 50
39 matches
Mail list logo
