We have a Samba PDC on FreeBSD 7.0-release. The goal is to make users home
drrives accessible throuth a VPN connection from Windows clients. Until now
I have experimented with the Poptop server without much success and now have
a working configuration based on Mpd4. This is not ideal, since I have
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:27:53AM +, Alireza Torabi wrote:
>Imagine this:
>
> | (1)
> packets
> | | (4)
>[nic1] [nic2]
> bpf SOCK_STREAM
> | (2)|
> [FreeBSD] (3)
>
>1) all
At Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:58:25 -0400,
James Snow wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:40:07PM -0400, James Snow wrote:
> >
> > Also, I took a cue from the IN_LINKLOCAL() macro and added two new
> > macros to sys/netinet/in.h to perform checks for the loopback network
> > and the "zero" net
Sean C. Farley wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I spent a fair amount of time today reading through the man pages and
>> source code and could not find any way of specifying an IPv6 network
>> in /etc/exports as you can with v4 and -network/-netmask. Am I missing
On 3/12/08, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd be very interesting to know the exactly models and their firmware
> version
> of the affected routers. If available locally I'd like to obtain a
> similar
> model myself for future regression tests.
Here are the models we managed to
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:02:53PM +0100, Giulio Ferro wrote:
> Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> >Please try latest attempt to fix re(4) issues.
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/if_re.c
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/if_rlreg.h
> >
> >This one is attempt to fix the following bug re
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Doug Barton wrote:
Folks,
I spent a fair amount of time today reading through the man pages and
source code and could not find any way of specifying an IPv6 network
in /etc/exports as you can with v4 and -network/-netmask. Am I missing
something? If not, is this an update t
Folks,
I spent a fair amount of time today reading through the man pages and
source code and could not find any way of specifying an IPv6 network
in /etc/exports as you can with v4 and -network/-netmask. Am I missing
something? If not, is this an update that is on someone's list somewhere?
All th
Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
Please try latest attempt to fix re(4) issues.
http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/if_re.c
http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/re/if_rlreg.h
This one is attempt to fix the following bug reports on re(4).
- VLAN tagging does not work on multi-fragmented frames.
- Non-wo
Greetings,
Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
Stefan, good day.
Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:43:44PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
But here is working example which you can improve off course.
#dual home
pass in on $ext_if1 reply-to ($ext_if1 $gw1) from any to $external_addr1
keep state
pass out on $e
Stefan, good day.
Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:43:44PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
>>> But here is working example which you can improve off course.
>>>
>>> #dual home
>>> pass in on $ext_if1 reply-to ($ext_if1 $gw1) from any to $external_addr1
>>> keep state
>>> pass out on $ext_if2 route-to ($
On 3/20/08, Stefan Lambrev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Vlad GALU wrote:
> > On 3/20/08, Stefan Lambrev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Wesley wrote:
> >> > Dear people,
> >> >
> >> > I have 2 links on a box, and I don't want to load balance it
Vlad GALU wrote:
On 3/20/08, Stefan Lambrev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings,
Wesley wrote:
> Dear people,
>
> I have 2 links on a box, and I don't want to load balance it but, only to
> reply requests in the same interface that it comes.
>
> I tried to use the route-to, but
On 3/20/08, Stefan Lambrev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
>
>
> Wesley wrote:
> > Dear people,
> >
> > I have 2 links on a box, and I don't want to load balance it but, only to
> > reply requests in the same interface that it comes.
> >
> > I tried to use the route-to, but it not
Greetings,
Wesley wrote:
Dear people,
I have 2 links on a box, and I don't want to load balance it but, only to
reply requests in the same interface that it comes.
I tried to use the route-to, but it not seems to work.
Could you please, give-me a help?
I do not see where you use "reply-
Dear people,
I have 2 links on a box, and I don't want to load balance it but, only to
reply requests in the same interface that it comes.
I tried to use the route-to, but it not seems to work.
Could you please, give-me a help?
It's my configuration:
set skip on lo0
scrub on xl0 reassemble tc
Imagine this:
| (1)
packets
| | (4)
[nic1] [nic2]
bpf SOCK_STREAM
| (2)|
[FreeBSD] (3)
1) all user traffic are being monitored
2) bpf on [nic] is capturing these packet
Hi Alireza Torabi!
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:57:39 +; Alireza Torabi wrote about 'Re: bpf packet
capture and SOCK_STREAM socket redirects...':
> That's sort of the problem. I've got a data link capture of the packet
> (bpf) and let say I redirect this packet to a SOCK_STREAM on another
> mach
Thanks for reply.
That's sort of the problem. I've got a data link capture of the packet
(bpf) and let say I redirect this packet to a SOCK_STREAM on another
machine and the whole thing will work fine (OK after rewritting some
mac and ip and checksums...).
I just need to do this on the SOCK_STRE
Hi Alireza Torabi!
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:43:52 +; Alireza Torabi wrote about 'bpf packet
capture and SOCK_STREAM socket redirects...':
> Is it possible to redirect/send/divert a bpf packet capture of one
> interface to a listening tcp socket on another interface of the same
> machine?
> He
Hi All,
Is it possible to redirect/send/divert a bpf packet capture of one
interface to a listening tcp socket on another interface of the same
machine?
Here is my problem:
I'm capturing packets on one interface but for some specific tcp
packets let's say from host A to host B on port P, I want to
Hi Freddie Cash!
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:55:53 -0700; Freddie Cash wrote about 'Re: "established"
on { tcp or udp } rules':
> ipfw add allow { tcp or udp } from me to any 53 out xmit fxp0
> ipfw add allow { tcp or udp } from any 53 to me in recv fxp0
> established
>> as for the que
Hi Freddie Cash!
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:32:01 -0700; Freddie Cash wrote about 'Separate rules
for each port, or one for all ports?':
> I'm just curious if there is any information available on how quickly ipfw
> processes rules, and whether or not a long list of ports in a single rule
> makes
23 matches
Mail list logo
