Steve Polyack wrote:
> ... An occaisional fat-finger in /etc/fstab may cause one to
> end up in single-user mode ... some of these systems have a LOM
> (lights-out management) controller which shares the system's
> on-board NICs ... when the system drops out of init(8) and into
> single-user mode
Darn, I have to correct myself once again.
Oleg Cherevko wrote:
Li, Qing wrote:
First of all, are you encountering any issues ?
Well, for the last 14+ years I used to setup aliases with 0x
netmask and everything worked OK. However recently I encountered
situation where 0x-st
I use pf+ALTQ to achieve some pretty decent traffic shaping results at home.
However, recently signed up to be part of an IPv6 trial with my ISP, and
they've given me a second (dual-stacked) PPPoE login with which to test
with. The problem is that the second login lacks my static IP or my routed
/2
Old Synopsis: [panic] _mtx_lock_sleep: recursed on non-recursive mutex
if_addr_mtx @ /usr/src/sys/netinet6/mld6.c:1676
New Synopsis: [e1000] [panic] _mtx_lock_sleep: recursed on non-recursive mutex
if_addr_mtx @ /usr/src/sys/netinet6/mld6.c:1676
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd
Li, Qing wrote:
First of all, are you encountering any issues ?
Well, for the last 14+ years I used to setup aliases with 0x netmask and
everything worked OK. However recently I encountered situation where
0x-style alias triggered some unwanted network behavior.
When one set
I have a handful of systems running FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE. An occaisional
fat-finger in /etc/fstab may cause one to end up in single-user mode
from time to time. This would normally not be a problem, but some of
these systems have a LOM (lights-out management) controller which shares
the system
First of all, are you encountering any issues ?
There is an outstanding issue with the address alias and improper routing
table update that I am actively working on.
--Qing
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> n...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of
On 29.06.2011 18:10, Oleg Cherevko wrote:
Are there any drawbacks in setting aliases like this:
ifconfig em0 inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xff00
ifconfig em0 inet 192.168.1.2 netmask 0xff00
instead of traditional:
ifconfig em0 inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xff00
Hi All,
When describing the "alias" parameter ifconfig manpage claims that "If
the address is on the same subnet as the first network address for this
interface, a non-conflicting netmask must be given. Usually 0x
is most appropriate."
Taking into account that FreeBSD supports aliase
