-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2010/09/17 10:42, Jack Vogel wrote:
> Put DDB/KDB into the kernel and get me the stack trace when this
> problem happens. Tell me exactly what the hardware is (pciconf).
Will do (I do have kdb/ddb in kernel but textdump still do minidump for
some
Put DDB/KDB into the kernel and get me the stack trace when this
problem happens. Tell me exactly what the hardware is (pciconf).
Jack
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Xin LI wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> I have got a bit of em0: discard frame w/o pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
I have got a bit of em0: discard frame w/o packet header (and sometimes
em1) and the system panics sometimes, the network traffic is not quite
large. This is fairly fresh stable/8 running under amd64, with pf,
altq, openvpn (tun mode) and ipv6
On 09/17/2010 03:18 AM, Vladimir Grigorov wrote:
> greets all
>
>
>
>> If you take a look at icmp_error() in sys/netinet/ip_icmp.c you will see
>> that icmp errors are not sent for packets that have been previously been
>> decrypted by IPSec.
>>
> May be some misunderstandings happens.
The following reply was made to PR kern/149804; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Pete French
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org,
petefre...@ticketswitch.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/149804: [icmp] [panic] ICMP redirect on causes "panic:
rtqkill route really not free"
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:44:14 +
Hello.
We're experiencing strange issues in a server with 6 em ports (2 pci-express
dual-port cards and 2 ports on the motherboard).
em0 / em1 are on a dual-port gigabit card, and in a few days we've experienced
this issue first with em1, then with em0 (across different reboots):
The em card s
greets all
> If you take a look at icmp_error() in sys/netinet/ip_icmp.c you will see
> that icmp errors are not sent for packets that have been previously been
> decrypted by IPSec.
May be some misunderstandings happens. I have gif and ipsec. IPSEC mode is
transport, that means, traffic e
Hi Andre Oppermann!
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:48:07 +0200; Andre Oppermann wrote about 'Re: TCP
loopback socket fusing':
>> 3 If properly doing this for TCP, we should probably also do it for
>> other protocols.
> UNIX domain sockets already do this. This implementation is particular
> for TCP an
