Hello,
Is this possible?
I've tried adding IFT_BRIDGE next to IFT_ETHER and IFT_L2VLAN in ip_carp.c
but this probably is not enough. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Niki
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
T
>> How about routing domain or forwarding domain?
> which shortens too
fib
vfib
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Marko Zec wrote:
On Friday 14 December 2007 02:53:38 you wrote:
...
the user tool that sets a default FIB for a process could simply be
called fib or setfib.
I think setfib.
I'm sold for setfib - short enough & makes sense & intuitive & not too
ambiguous like vrf.
I think you are done here.
Julian Elischer wrote:
What I'm implementing is, as Qing said, a form of policy based forwarding
i.e. you can use a broad set of criteria to select a "FIB" (to use the
terms here) dependent on a number of criteria.
Criteria include source socket (for local connections) which
is derived from pro
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Hi,
Just to chime in and agree with Bjoern, I'm finishing up a routing
protocol right now so this discussion is somewhat timely.
I disagree that this is a "bikeshed", quite the contrary -- the visual
and the verbal have to live together, and it's easy for those of us
Hi,
Just to chime in and agree with Bjoern, I'm finishing up a routing
protocol right now so this discussion is somewhat timely.
I disagree that this is a "bikeshed", quite the contrary -- the visual
and the verbal have to live together, and it's easy for those of us who
have the semantic ma
On Friday 14 December 2007 00:01:32 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > I'd suggest to go with any kind of spelling of 'fibid', 'fib_id',
> > 'FIBid', or ... as that's what it is called these days.
>
> inside the kernel I'll be sticking with the rt_ prefix
> to reduce confusion. I think I'll go with the ta
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Hi,
since I've never heard of it before I don't know how standard FIB is?
FIB (Forwarding Information Base) has been very standard for years and
is often confused with foo and bar;-)
[ Trying to get very simplistic explanation together at 1:15am ]
Hi list,
On bridge firewall with PF can I do anything more then using
(source-track rule, max-src-conn-rate SS/ss, max-src-states X)
to protect servers&services behind it from SYN flood?
--
Best Wishes,
Stefan Lambrev
ICQ# 24134177
___
freebsd-net@fr
Hi,
Is there a reason that when adding member ports to a bridge stp is not
enabled by default on them?
Wouldn't it be more intuitive to be enabled by default these days?
Regards,
Niki
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mai
I'd suggest to go with any kind of spelling of 'fibid', 'fib_id',
'FIBid', or ... as that's what it is called these days.
inside the kernel I'll be sticking with the rt_ prefix
to reduce confusion. I think I'll go with the tableid name used in
openBSD for compat reasons, and its succinct.
h
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Let the colour be green-blue-blue.
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
How about "setfib"?
I strongly believe we should deprecate the use of the term "routing" where
the BSD forwarding plane is concerned, whilst familiar to many it is
misleading as to what th
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
How about "setfib"?
I strongly believe we should deprecate the use of the term "routing"
where the BSD forwarding plane is concerned, whilst familiar to many it
is misleading as to what that part of the system is actually doing.
maybe, but it would be a large surprise
Here is another idea spurred by this:
> I understand that this feature is something which swaps in a different
> forwarding table for the application one is currently running?
>
> And that it works in a manner similar to chroot()?
Swapping in a different forwarding table is very much like
swapp
How about "setfib"?
I strongly believe we should deprecate the use of the term "routing"
where the BSD forwarding plane is concerned, whilst familiar to many it
is misleading as to what that part of the system is actually doing.
2c
BMS
___
freebsd-n
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 01:46:35 Julian Elischer wrote:
pf has ifdef'ed out code to deal with the OpenBSD version of routing
tables. What it does is adding an mbuf_tag which carries the tableid
and ip_{{in,out}put,forward} take action accordingly.
EXACTLY what I p
Li, Qing wrote:
-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 m
Maxime Henrion wrote:
Replying to myself on this one, sorry about that.
I said in my previous mail that I didn't know yet what process was
holding the lock of the rtentry that the routed process is dealing
with in rt_setgate(), and I just could verify that it is held by
the swi1: net thread.
So
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 01:46:35 Julian Elischer wrote:
pf has ifdef'ed out code to deal with the OpenBSD version of routing
tables. What it does is adding an mbuf_tag which carries the tableid
and ip_{{in,out}put,forward} take action accordingly.
EXACTLY what I p
Maxime Henrion wrote:
Replying to myself on this one, sorry about that.
I said in my previous mail that I didn't know yet what process was
holding the lock of the rtentry that the routed process is dealing
with in rt_setgate(), and I just could verify that it is held by
the swi1: net thread.
S
Raffaele De Lorenzo wrote at 14:39 +0100 on Dec 10, 2007:
> You can see in the port-tree my project "csocks" and
> http://csocks.altervista.org.
Thanks for lettings us know about your project. Here are
just a few comments.
Why don't you provide the source code in the port?
For an open sou
On Thursday 13 December 2007 01:46:35 Julian Elischer wrote:
> > pf has ifdef'ed out code to deal with the OpenBSD version of routing
> > tables. What it does is adding an mbuf_tag which carries the tableid
> > and ip_{{in,out}put,forward} take action accordingly.
>
> EXACTLY what I plan on doing.
Replying to myself on this one, sorry about that.
I said in my previous mail that I didn't know yet what process was
holding the lock of the rtentry that the routed process is dealing
with in rt_setgate(), and I just could verify that it is held by
the swi1: net thread.
So, in a nutshell:
- The
Hi,
We've been experiencing frequent deadlocks within the routing code
with our gateway servers that are running routed. I finally got
sufficient information to precisely pinpoint the problem, so here
we go...
DDB was helpful in leading me to understanding:
chain 1:
thread 14 (pid
What about "routing zone" or "forwarding zone" which may be
abbreviated as "rtzone" or "fwdzone".
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
Julian Elischer wrote:
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 would really really like it if we cou
26 matches
Mail list logo
