Synopsis: [ipsec] [panic] ipsec 'remainder too big' panic with ping -s 3989
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->vanhu
Responsible-Changed-By: vanhu
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Dec 26 21:42:15 UTC 2008
Responsible-Changed-Why:
We are currently tracking down the same problem.
http://www.fr
Hi,
I have committed a patch for this problem. Please sync-up to
SVN rev 186500 on 2008-12-26 19:45:24Z by qingli
Thank,
-- Qing
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> curr...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Li, Qing
> Sent: Thursday, Decem
Bruce:
Ok some comments in line and an updated patch... I went
through and reverted and manually cut out the "extra's" that
s9indent (note not my script something I got for gnn) did :-)
And I also have some comments for you :-D
On Dec 24, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2
>-Original Message-
>From: nrml nrml
>Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 >2:42 AM
>To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
>Subject: IPSec + Packet loss and
>ipsec_common_input error
>
>All,
>
>So I've got IPSec installed and
>configured and I can communicate >across the tunnel just fine but I got >som
All,
So I've got IPSec installed and configured and I can communicate across the
tunnel just fine but I got some pretty bad packet loss:
I've got server1 connected to server2 in another building via a T1 circuit.
This is from server1 to a sever behind server2:
--- 192.168.20.x ping statistics
Hello.
On Friday, December 26, 2008, 12:38:18 AM you wrote:
EG> Is there a way to reduce bsnmpd's CPU & memory usage
EG> for BGP router using full view?
EG> I do not need to deal with routing table via SNMP.
EG> SNMP is needed to monitor interface byte counters only via mrtg.
EG> bsnmpd grows u
Eugene Grosbein wrote:
Petri Helenius wrote:
In any case it should re-read the kernel table only every 10 minutes
and in the mean time monitor the routing socket to update its copy
of the table. If of course someone is doing a lot of updates on
Why does it have to re-read the table p
Petri Helenius wrote:
> > In any case it should re-read the kernel table only every 10 minutes
> > and in the mean time monitor the routing socket to update its copy
> > of the table. If of course someone is doing a lot of updates on
>
> Why does it have to re-read the table periodically if it ge
On Dec 25, 2008, at 10:10 PM, Hartmut Brandt wrote:
In any case it should re-read the kernel table only every 10 minutes
and in the mean time monitor the routing socket to update its copy
of the table. If of course someone is doing a lot of updates on
Why does it have to re-read the tabl
