This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rS314948: Try to extract the RFC1048 data from PXE. If we get
enough info we can skip (authored by oshogbo).
CHANGED PRIOR TO COMMIT
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9847?vs=25936&id=26089#toc
REPOSITORY
r
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217606
Kristof Provost changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||k...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #1
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212749
Kristof Provost changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|New
Victor Sudakov wrote:
> Victor Sudakov wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone running GSSAPI+IKE (racoon)?
>
> I'm still struggling with racoon in GSSAPI mode. racoon says
>
> 2017-03-08 13:01:59: [192.168.3.38] ERROR: failed to get valid proposal.
> 2017-03-08 13:01:59: [192.168.3.38] ERROR: failed to pre-pr
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217600
--- Comment #6 from l...@donnerhacke.de ---
NAT is not a requirement for routing.
You can simply use private IP addresses in you network and route them directly.
But if you want to take part in the Internet, you have to follow the rules
the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217600
--- Comment #5 from judah.lev...@colorado.edu ---
I have configured the two systems to use NAT as you suggested, and that works.
The problem is solved from my perspective, and I have no objection to closing
the ticket.
However, I think ther
On 03/08/17 18:03, Freddie Cash wrote:
It's listed in the EXAMPLES section of the ipfw(8) man page.
ipfw nat show config​ <-- view config for all nat instances
ipfw nat 123 show config <-- view config for nat 123
ipfw nat 111-999 show<-- view logs for nat 111-999
Oops!!!
Been working
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm using "ipfw nat" on several 10.3 boxes, but I have some questions.
>
> Let's start with a simple one: how do I list configured NATs and their
> details?
> I know I can configure a NAT with "ipfw nat 1 config ...", but how do
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217637
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org|freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
--
You are
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:52:36 +0100, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Just on one point:
> Second question:
> _ if I issue "ipfw nat 2 config if re0", I'll see the output "ipfw nat 2
> config if re0";
> _ if I issue "ipfw nat 2 config ip 192.168.0.1", I'll see the output "ipfw
> nat 2 config ip 192.168
Hello.
I'm using "ipfw nat" on several 10.3 boxes, but I have some questions.
Let's start with a simple one: how do I list configured NATs and their
details?
I know I can configure a NAT with "ipfw nat 1 config ...", but how do I
show what I did?
Second question:
_ if I issue "ipfw nat 2
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 04:03:46PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:57:10PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:25:57AM -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
> >
> > > Right off the bat, FreeBSD doesn't really understand NUMA in any
> > > sufficient
> >
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:57:10PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:25:57AM -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
>
> > Right off the bat, FreeBSD doesn't really understand NUMA in any sufficient
> > capacity. Unfortunately at companies like the one I work at, we take that
> >
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217600
--- Comment #4 from l...@donnerhacke.de ---
The routing tables look good.
So can you please verify, using tcpdump, that
- the packets leave router B with the correct ether destination mac
of the router b interface
- the packets reach r
On 3/7/2017 9:08 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
>>
>> # dmesg | grep netm
>> netmap: loaded module
>> vcxl0: netmap queues/slots: TX 2/1023, RX 2/1024
>> vcxl0: 1 txq, 1 rxq (NIC); 1 txq, 1 rxq (TOE); 2 txq, 2 rxq (netmap)
>> vcxl1: netmap queues/
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217600
--- Comment #3 from judah.lev...@colorado.edu ---
Created attachment 180637
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=180637&action=edit
parameters of dual-network gateway system
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217600
--- Comment #2 from judah.lev...@colorado.edu ---
Created attachment 180636
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=180636&action=edit
parameters of inernal back system
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:25:57AM -0700, Kevin Bowling wrote:
> Right off the bat, FreeBSD doesn't really understand NUMA in any sufficient
> capacity. Unfortunately at companies like the one I work at, we take that
> to mean "OK buy a high bin CPU and only populate one socket" which serves
NUM
Right off the bat, FreeBSD doesn't really understand NUMA in any sufficient
capacity. Unfortunately at companies like the one I work at, we take that
to mean "OK buy a high bin CPU and only populate one socket" which serves
us well and may ultimately be the best value but does nothing to address
t
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 09:00:34AM +0500, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Some have probably seen this already -
> http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2017-March/313254.html
>
> So, could anyone explain why FreeBSD was owned that much. Test is split
> into two parts, one is ngin
20 matches
Mail list logo
