On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:31:25 +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Michael.
> You wrote 29 ??? 2012 ?., 19:01:08:
>
>
> >> I have interface (vr1), most of traffic on which is PPPoE. I have ipfw
> >> firewall, which splits traffic by interfaces via:
> >>
> >> add 2000 skipto 5000 a
Is there any reason why sorele() needs the accept lock to be held?
231 #define sorele(so) do { \
232 ACCEPT_LOCK_ASSERT(); \
233 SOCK_LOCK_ASSERT(so);
On 08/29/12 10:30, Vijay Singh wrote:
All, I am seeing this warning on my 8.2 based system.
taskqueue_drain with the following non-sleepable locks held:
exclusive rw lle (lle) r = 0 (0xff0014dc9110) locked @ sys/netinet/in.c:1760
KDB: stack backtrace:
kdb_backtrace() at kdb_backtrace+0x3e
_w
On 08/28/2012 11:12 AM, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
Hi Giulio,
Just to clear things up:
igb0: 192.168.9.60/24
lagg0: 192.168.12.21/24
Yes.
Actually I notice now that the lagg0 address is different from what
I wrote below in my rc.conf (192.168.12.7). I've just made many test
with different confi
Hello, Michael.
You wrote 29 августа 2012 г., 19:01:50:
>> ip from any to any in recv vr0
MS> "any" here is also not appropriate...
Additional checks (for correct addresses, etc) are performed at rules
11xxx :)
--
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov
___
Hello, Michael.
You wrote 29 августа 2012 г., 19:01:08:
>> I have interface (vr1), most of traffic on which is PPPoE. I have ipfw
>> firewall, which splits traffic by interfaces via:
>>
>> add 2000 skipto 5000 all from any to any via em0
>> add 2010 skipto 7000 all from any to any via wlan0
All, I am seeing this warning on my 8.2 based system.
taskqueue_drain with the following non-sleepable locks held:
exclusive rw lle (lle) r = 0 (0xff0014dc9110) locked @ sys/netinet/in.c:1760
KDB: stack backtrace:
kdb_backtrace() at kdb_backtrace+0x3e
_witness_debugger() at _witness_debugger+0
Pete French wrote:
>
> Actually I went and looked out my old emails - Cisco 3750 switches
> worked as a pair with LACP, Cisco 3560 ones didn't. Whatever the
> difference is between those two, thats the difference between working
> and not working :) Is that real stacking vs virtual stacking by any
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> ip from any to any in recv vr0
"any" here is also not appropriate...
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> I have interface (vr1), most of traffic on which is PPPoE. I have ipfw
> firewall, which splits traffic by interfaces via:
>
> add 2000 skipto 5000 all from any to any via em0
> add 2010 skipto 7000 all from any to any via wlan0
> ad
Synopsis: [vlan] [panic] detaching of ethernet adapter with configured vlans
leads to panic
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: jhb
State-Changed-When: Wed Aug 29 12:44:01 UTC 2012
State-Changed-Why:
Fix committed to HEAD.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=168742
On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Harald Schmalzbauer
wrote:
> schrieb Pete French am 29.08.2012 11:38 (localtime):
>>> Link aggregation can never work with two separate switches! LACP and
>>> static trunking require both sides to bundle the same trunk. which is
>>> impossible for two separate switc
> Have you checked that Windows really did LACP in your case? Sounds like
> it was no real hardware stack, so probably Windos just activated RSTP.
> FreeBSD doesn't detect any LACP/RSTP configuration features, but windows
> does with some NIC verndor's drivers.
That is quite possible - I didnt set
schrieb Harald Schmalzbauer am 29.08.2012 12:18 (localtime):
> schrieb Pete French am 29.08.2012 11:38 (localtime):
>>> Link aggregation can never work with two separate switches! LACP and
>>> static trunking require both sides to bundle the same trunk. which is
>>> impossible for two separate sw
schrieb Pete French am 29.08.2012 11:38 (localtime):
>> Link aggregation can never work with two separate switches! LACP and
>> static trunking require both sides to bundle the same trunk. which is
>> impossible for two separate switches.
> These switches had a port where you could connect them to
> Link aggregation can never work with two separate switches! LACP and
> static trunking require both sides to bundle the same trunk. which is
> impossible for two separate switches.
These switches had a port where you could connect them together and
then configure each to know about the other swi
Al 29/08/2012 11:02, En/na Peter Jeremy ha escrit:
On 2012-Aug-28 11:44:44 +0200, Gustau Pérez i Querol
wrote:
I'm running FreeBSD 9.1 RC1/AMD64 with VirtualBox. The problem I'm
facing is that I can't use more than 8 network adapters plugged to the
virtual machine.
...
I don't know if
Hello, Freebsd-net.
I have interface (vr1), most of traffic on which is PPPoE. I have ipfw
firewall, which splits traffic by interfaces via:
add 2000 skipto 5000 all from any to any via em0
add 2010 skipto 7000 all from any to any via wlan0
add 2020 skipto 11000 all from any to any via vr1
On 2012-Aug-28 11:44:44 +0200, Gustau Pérez i Querol
wrote:
> I'm running FreeBSD 9.1 RC1/AMD64 with VirtualBox. The problem I'm
>facing is that I can't use more than 8 network adapters plugged to the
>virtual machine.
...
>I don't know if it's a net@ problem or maybe it is a problem with
schrieb Pete French am 28.08.2012 11:48 (localtime):
>> No answer, so it seems that link aggregation doesn't really work in freebsd,
>> this may help others with the same problem...
> I used to use LCAP a lot - this was a few years ago, but the critical
> point was that it only worked if all the c
20 matches
Mail list logo
