i know wep sucks caterpillar snot. but, for layer nine reasons, i
am trying to get it going on a soekris 5501 to a winxp machine and
am pretty confused.
first, if i run open, with wep off at both ends, no problem. if i
enable wep, i get what seems line a simplex, one-way, connection.
first, the p
Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 07:04:41PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Old Synopsis: [ipfilter] keep state does not seem to allow replies in on
> spar64 (and maybe others)
> > New Synopsis: hme0: Interface unable to do tx and rx checksumming when
> using ipfilter.
> >
The following reply was made to PR kern/106438; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Remko Lodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Manuel Tobias Schiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kern/106438: ipfilter: keep state does not seem to allow replies
in on spar64 (and maybe others)
Dat
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Julian,
First of all, thank you very much for starting this work in a much
needed area.
Julian Elischer wrote:
This is a call for review for a change that is part of a
longer term project.
This implements multiple routing tables. Eventually the implementation
will b
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:33:25AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> Maxime Henrion wrote:
J> > Replying to myself on this one, sorry about that.
J> > I said in my previous mail that I didn't know yet what process was
J> > holding the lock of the rtentry that the routed proce
On Friday 14 December 2007, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Tom Judge wrote:
> > I guess that there will be more than one VRRP implementation that
> > does not generate packets with a header the same size as the carp
> > header.
> >
> > I will look into generating a patch for this over the weekend,
> > h
-- cut here --
lock order reversal:
1st 0x805bcf60 pf task mtx (pf task mtx) @ contrib/pf/net/pf.c:6729
2nd 0xff00031e1cf0 radix node head (radix node head) @ net/route.c:147
KDB: stack backtrace:
db_trace_self_wrapper() at db_trace_self_wrapper+0x2a
witness_checkorder() at witness_ch
On Dec 14, 2007 5:31 AM, Bruce M. Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Niki Denev wrote:
> > 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?
> >
>
> CARP is 'special' in that it needs t
Les Cahiers de l'Emploi
[1]StepStone
[2]Offres d'emploi [3]Déposez votre CV [4]Recevez des offres d'emploi
[5]Contactez-nous
Dans cette édition des "Cahiers de l'Emploi" :
* [6]Derniere minute pour gagner un iPod !
* [7]Etude StepStone : Des primes dans votre B
Tom Judge wrote:
I guess that there will be more than one VRRP implementation that does
not generate packets with a header the same size as the carp header.
I will look into generating a patch for this over the weekend,
however any thoughts/suggestions would be appreciated before I start
wor
Stephen Clark wrote:
> 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
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:33:25AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> J> Maxime Henrion wrote:
> J> > Replying to myself on this one, sorry about that.
> J> > I said in my previous mail that I didn't know yet what process was
> J> > holding the lock of the rtentry that the rout
Hi,
I have just looked into the source of an error that we are seeing a lot
on our FreeBSD 6.2-p5 systems. The error is:
"carp_input: received len 20 < sizeof(struct carp_header)"
The messages are coming from a pair of systems that are configured to
have a pair of load balancing carp interfa
Privet, Alexandr
Alexandr Kovalenko wrote:
Hello, Vladimir Ivanov!
[skip]
Which of newest versions should I use in RELENG_6_X now?
Let you try http://people.yandex-team.ru/wawa/em-6.7.3-yandex-1.28.tar.gz.
We keep code synced with latest RELENG_6.
Latest feature: I have start to move m
Hello, Vladimir Ivanov!
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:31:31PM +0400, you wrote:
> LI Xin wrote:
> >Shoot, the TX mutex locking and unlocking should not belong here. Let
> >me check the code.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> Don't forget: our latest version
> http://people.yandex-team.ru/wawa/em-6.6.6-yandex
> Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:20:32AM +0100, vermaden wrote:
> > I already used tcpdump, if ICMP packet goes in thru 192.168/16 on rl1
> the
> > response goes out on 10/24 on rl0.
>
> And the destination MAC address of the ICMP reply that is going
> through rl0 is?
>
> What if you'll do two experimen
Julian,
First of all, thank you very much for starting this work in a much
needed area.
Julian Elischer wrote:
This is a call for review for a change that is part of a
longer term project.
This implements multiple routing tables. Eventually the implementation
will be much cleaner but
the f
Any way to atomically replace an ipfw rule?
i.e. do away without delete:
ipfw add 100 pipe 1 ip from aaa to bbb
ipfw delete 100
ipfw add 100 pipe 2 ip from aaa to bbb
This results in 2 rules being added:
ipfw add 100 pipe 1 ip from aaa to bbb
ipfw add 100 pipe 2 ip from aaa to bbb
BTW what happ
Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:20:32AM +0100, vermaden wrote:
> I already used tcpdump, if ICMP packet goes in thru 192.168/16 on rl1 the
> response goes out on 10/24 on rl0.
And the destination MAC address of the ICMP reply that is going
through rl0 is?
What if you'll do two experiments: drop the defau
Niki Denev wrote:
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?
CARP is 'special' in that it needs to add its own MAC addresses to your
interface, needs a bit of special cooperation between th
> Good day.
>
> Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:11:24AM +0100, vermaden wrote:
> > network 10.0.0.0/24 is put on rl0 and 192.168.0.0/16
> > is on rl1, default router is set to 10.0.0.1 on /etc/rc.conf as
> > defaultrouter="10.0.0.1", the problem:
> >
> > When I ping some box from 10.0.0.0 network, it res
Good day.
Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 10:11:24AM +0100, vermaden wrote:
> network 10.0.0.0/24 is put on rl0 and 192.168.0.0/16
> is on rl1, default router is set to 10.0.0.1 on /etc/rc.conf as
> defaultrouter="10.0.0.1", the problem:
>
> When I ping some box from 10.0.0.0 network, it responds, when some
On Friday 14 December 2007, Niki Denev wrote:
> 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?
Can you describe what you are trying to do? I can't quite imagine why you
would want to carp bri
On Friday 14 December 2007, vermaden wrote:
> Hi all
> I have strange problem with default router for two diffrent networks
> put on my FreeBSD box, network 10.0.0.0/24 is put on rl0 and
> 192.168.0.0/16 is on rl1, default router is set to 10.0.0.1 on
> /etc/rc.conf as defaultrouter="10.0.0.1", the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 10:33:25AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
J> Maxime Henrion wrote:
J> > Replying to myself on this one, sorry about that.
J> > I said in my previous mail that I didn't know yet what process was
J> > holding the lock of the rtentry that the routed process is dealing
J> > with
Hi all
I have strange problem with default router for two diffrent networks
put on my FreeBSD box, network 10.0.0.0/24 is put on rl0 and 192.168.0.0/16
is on rl1, default router is set to 10.0.0.1 on /etc/rc.conf as
defaultrouter="10.0.0.1", the problem:
When I ping some box from 10.0.0.0 network,
This is a call for review for a change that is part of a
longer term project.
This implements multiple routing tables.
Eventually the implementation will be much cleaner but
the first implementation is designed to be backported to 6.x
and thus must be ABI compatible. It need not be particularly
27 matches
Mail list logo
