context is 7.1-beta2
I'm using a FreeBSD box as a router and IPFW/dummynet to simulate 3 WAN
connections. The three networks are actually on the same lan, but have
aliased ip's on the router's NIC (router on a stick). I've set up
bi-directional pipes for each "net" that enforce various impairmen
Old Synopsis: ath cannot connect using WEP
New Synopsis: [ath] ath cannot connect using WEP
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Thu Nov 20 22:41:44 UTC 2008
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to maintainer(s).
http://www.fre
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
Hi,
freebsd-jail@ is a good place to ask jail questiosn as well.
For some strange reason, RAW sockets (when allowed) and TCP beheave
very differently in jail (7.1-PRERELEASE). In host's rc.conf:
jail_enable="YES"
jail_list="test"
jail_devfs_enable="
On Nov 20, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Max Laier wrote:
On Thursday 20 November 2008 14:00:11 Randall Stewart wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Its not new, its the same ip header..
Its just you go into the mbuf chain and take out
the udp header...
well you can't do that at t
Hi!
For some strange reason, RAW sockets (when allowed) and TCP beheave
very differently in jail (7.1-PRERELEASE). In host's rc.conf:
jail_enable="YES"
jail_list="test"
jail_devfs_enable="YES"
jail_test_rootdir="/mnt/big/jail/test"
jail_test_hostname="myname.ru"
jail_test_ip="192.168.0.1"
jail_te
dikshie wrote:
...
both boxes has same ipv4 subnet and same ipv6 link.
7.1 box has options MROUTING
6.3 box does not has options MROUTING
Post ktrace output?
Can you try building MROUTING as a module instead, load it in and see if
you have the same result?
_
Hi.
The 10.10.7.1 is the FreeBSD box with the rl0 interface that gets added to a
bridge. The 10.0.0.6 box is the other FreeBSD box. If you would like the
same tcpdumps for any other OS pinging this box i would be glad to supply.
Heres the output from the tcpdump, this carries on as long as the p
On Thursday 20 November 2008 14:00:11 Randall Stewart wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >> Its not new, its the same ip header..
> >> Its just you go into the mbuf chain and take out
> >> the udp header...
> >
> > well you can't do that at the socket buffer becasue you'
Bjoern:
I am writing this email FROM the IETF. There are MANY
drafts right now in the IETF that will SOON become RFC's on
how to run transport foo over UDP. this seems to be
a predominate thing now. IPv6 was not ready early thus
we suffer nats.. and always will (see my previous response a few
min
On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
Its not new, its the same ip header..
Its just you go into the mbuf chain and take out
the udp header...
well you can't do that at the socket buffer becasue you've discarded
the IP header. It may not even be in the mbufs you have. (though
hi,
i have strange situation here.
in my 6.3 box:
-
$ asmping ff38:20:2001:d30:: soi-mirror.unibraw.ai3.net
asmping joined (S,G) = (*,ff38:20:2001:d30::4321:1234)
pinging 2001:d30:111:2::4 from 2001:d30:101:1::10
unicast from 2001:d30:111:2::4, seq=1 dist=2 time
Harti Brandt wrote:
Hi Andre,
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andre Oppermann wrote:
AO>This is a bit more complicated because of interactions with tcp_input()
AO>where syncache_expand() is called from.
AO>
AO>The old code (as of December 2002) behaved slightly different. It would
AO>not remove the synca
Cole, good day.
Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:46:42AM +0200, Cole wrote:
> I have a box with a few interfaces, and i had setup rl0 with an ip address
> and it could communicate/ping everything on the network fine, all the rest
> of the other interfaces are unplugged and have no ip's assigned. Now if i g
Cole wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have been playing with FreeBSD bridging in 7.0-Release. And was just
> testing some things to see exactly how it worked and try a few things out. I
> know that this isn't how the bridge is meant to be setup, but now im just
> curious as to why the following is happening.
>
Rui Paulo wrote:
On 17 Nov 2008, at 22:40, Andre Oppermann wrote:
This is a bit more complicated because of interactions with tcp_input()
where syncache_expand() is called from.
The old code (as of December 2002) behaved slightly different. It would
not remove the syncache entry when (SND.UNA
Hi.
I have been playing with FreeBSD bridging in 7.0-Release. And was just
testing some things to see exactly how it worked and try a few things out. I
know that this isn't how the bridge is meant to be setup, but now im just
curious as to why the following is happening.
I have a box with a few i
16 matches
Mail list logo
