list:
I'm focused on technical feasibility only at the moment and getting
ready for a "moonshot" talk at netdevconf march 21st , and I'd while
I'd dearly appreciate folk trying some "interesting" patches and
providing feedback
(https://github.com/dtaht/ipv4-cleanup/tree/master/patches ) am
totally
Hi!
> Am 22.02.2019 um 18:03 schrieb Michael Grimm :
>
> Am 2019-02-22 11:31, schrieb Patrick M. Hausen:
>
> [x-posted to freebsd-j...@freebsd.org]
>
>> The machine is an iocage jail host, all jails with VNET.
>> The problem is: network performance in the jails (not on the host!) is
>> abysmal
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235787
--- Comment #2 from Ozkan KIRIK ---
Hello,
Type of traffic is mixed both tcp and udp. Traffic is generated using WARP17
(github.com/Juniper/warp17) tool. Configuration is req size 1000byte and
response size 65535byte both UDP and TCP traff
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, Giacomo Olgeni wrote:
> 00100 00 nat 1 ip from any to any recv epair0b
> 00200 74 4080 nat 1 ip from any to any xmit epair0b
> 00300 00 check-state :default
> 00400 6 360 allow tcp from any to any out xmit epair0b setup
> keep-sta
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235927
--- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer ---
(In reply to Dave Taht from comment #9)
> (In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #2)
> >If they're non-canonical, we should *not* allow them to be assigned to
> >interfaces.
>
> -1
Help me understand
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235927
Conrad Meyer changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|12.0-RELEASE|CURRENT
--
You are receiving this
> Taking this off list
This thread would be better served on n...@freebsd.org,
what do you think cem?
After getting to the end of this I decided I am going to
add n...@freebsd.org, and woll...@freebsd.org just in case
he is not on that list.
To those first seeing any of this, it is a thread that
Am 2019-02-22 11:31, schrieb Patrick M. Hausen:
[x-posted to freebsd-j...@freebsd.org]
The machine is an iocage jail host, all jails with VNET.
The problem is: network performance in the jails (not on the host!) is
abysmal
with the second setup. Not consistently so, everything *seems* to wor
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235927
--- Comment #9 from Dave Taht ---
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #2)
>Regardless of whether or not using class E addresses is canonical, we half-ass
>it >today.
+1
>If they're non-canonical, we should *not* allow them to be assig
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235927
Dave Taht changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave.t...@gmail.com
--- Comment #8 fro
Hi,
I have been playing around with IPFW and in-kernel NAT in a VNET jail, in
order to implement NAT before IPsec. The IPsec part is provided by a
different VNET jail that seems to be working fine.
Problem is, I could not get NAT working in any way so far. And just to be
sure, I already disable
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235787
Piotr Pietruszewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr.pietruszewski@intel.c
Hi all,
please have a look at these two network setups:
--- separate interfaces ---
ifconfig_ixl0="up"
ifconfig_ixl1="up"
cloned_interfaces="bridge0 bridge1"
ifconfig_bridge0_name="inet0"
ifconfig_inet0="addm ixl0 up"
ifconfig_inet0_alias0="inet ww.xx.yy.zz/24"
ifconfig_inet0_ipv6="ine
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235920
Poul-Henning Kamp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #
14 matches
Mail list logo
