On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:53:44AM +0330, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > As you know the ipsec/setkey provide limited syntax to define security
> > policies: only a single subnet/host, protocol number and optional port
> > may
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM, 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
> us well and
I think this would be a good candidate for iflib and can provide some
assistance from Matt and Sean if someone wants to try or we might get to it
eventually. Check out man 9 iflibdd. We had a lot of stability and
ordering issues adding multiqueue to FBSD em(4) similar to what Sephe did
in DFBSD's
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Kajetan Staszkiewicz
wrote:
> Dnia poniedziałek, 6 marca 2017 16:06:03 CET Sepherosa Ziehau pisze:
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Kajetan Staszkiewicz
>>
>> wrote:
>> > To whom it might concern:
>> >
>> > Well, at least it does concern me. Why is support for
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:53:44AM +0330, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you know the ipsec/setkey provide limited syntax to define security
> policies: only a single subnet/host, protocol number and optional port
> may be used to specify traffic's source and destination.
>
> I was thinking
Hi,
As you know the ipsec/setkey provide limited syntax to define security
policies: only a single subnet/host, protocol number and optional port
may be used to specify traffic's source and destination.
I was thinking about the idea of using ipfw as the packet selector for ipsec,
much like it is
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217637
--- Comment #6 from Michael Tuexen ---
Which OSes are used on the client and on the server side? Both FreeBSD 10.3?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
