> Am 08.10.2015 um 11:18 schrieb VANHULLEBUS Yvan :
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 08:30:57PM +0600, Victor Sudakov wrote:
>> The two sysctls:
>>
>> net.key.preferred_oldsa=0
By the way, the actual sysctl oid is "net.key.prefered_oldsa" — preferred
wrongly spelled with one 'r' only.
___
Hi John & others,
We've came across a weird MSI routing issue on one of our newest dual
E5-2690v3 (haswell) Supermicro X10DRL-i boxes running latest 10.2-p4. It is
fitted with dual port Intel I350 card, in addition to the built-in I210
chip that is not used. The hw.igb.num_queues is set to 4, and
Hi.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 08:30:57PM +0600, Victor Sudakov wrote:
[.]
> The two sysctls:
>
> net.key.preferred_oldsa=0
When there are more than one SA available (most common case is when a
new SA is keyed as the old one becomes near to end of life), this
sysctl tells the kernel which one t
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015, at 03:12, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:57:42 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've only used IPFW in the past for the most basic of tasks. I'd like to
> > use it with in-kernel NAT protecting both v4 and v6 and add
> > dummynet/pipe later, but I
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203175
--- Comment #12 from Julien Charbon ---
Just an update: The first tentative patch seems to address completely this
issue, I am working on a more longterm patch following -net advices. I will
add the corresponding review here.
--
You are
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've now MFC'ed r287775 to 10-stable and 9-stable. I hope this will
> resolve the issues with m_defrag() being called on too long mbuf chains
> due to an off-by-one in the driver TSO parameters and that it will be
> easier to maintain these parameters in the fu
Hi,
I've now MFC'ed r287775 to 10-stable and 9-stable. I hope this will
resolve the issues with m_defrag() being called on too long mbuf chains
due to an off-by-one in the driver TSO parameters and that it will be
easier to maintain these parameters in the future.
Some comments were made tha
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:57:42 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've only used IPFW in the past for the most basic of tasks. I'd like to
> use it with in-kernel NAT protecting both v4 and v6 and add
> dummynet/pipe later, but I have to get the basic working first. I'm
> either overlookin
