https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=259645
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|crash after updating to |crash in_cksumdata
"Rodney W. Grimes" wrote:
> > Note, the default FreeBSD firewall rules already have:
> >
> > ${fwcmd} add 100 pass all from any to any via lo0
> > ${fwcmd} add 200 deny all from any to 127.0.0.0/8
> > ${fwcmd} add 300 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any
>
> Which no longer work correctly
Rod wrote:
> > Jamie wrote:
> >
> > > Oleksandr Kryvulia wrote:
> >
> > > > 04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels wrote:
> > > > > I have a pending change to stop using class A/B/C netmasks when
> > > > > setting
> > > > > an interface address without an explicit mask, and instead to use a
> > > > > de
> Jamie wrote:
>
> > Oleksandr Kryvulia wrote:
>
> > > 04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels wrote:
> > > > I have a pending change to stop using class A/B/C netmasks when setting
> > > > an interface address without an explicit mask, and instead to use a
> > > > default
> > > > mask (24 bits). A questi
> Oleksandr Kryvulia wrote:
>
> > 04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels ?:
> > > I have a pending change to stop using class A/B/C netmasks when setting
> > > an interface address without an explicit mask, and instead to use a
> > > default
> > > mask (24 bits). A question has arisen as to what the d
> 04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels ?:
> > I have a pending change to stop using class A/B/C netmasks when setting
> > an interface address without an explicit mask, and instead to use a default
> > mask (24 bits). A question has arisen as to what the default mask should
> > be for loopback interfac
Jamie wrote:
> Oleksandr Kryvulia wrote:
> > 04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels wrote:
> > > I have a pending change to stop using class A/B/C netmasks when setting
> > > an interface address without an explicit mask, and instead to use a
> > > default
> > > mask (24 bits). A question has arisen as t
Oleksandr Kryvulia wrote:
> 04.11.21 01:01, Mike Karels пишет:
> > I have a pending change to stop using class A/B/C netmasks when setting
> > an interface address without an explicit mask, and instead to use a default
> > mask (24 bits). A question has arisen as to what the default mask should
> After survey about solution for Broadcom bnxt driver issue with promiscous
> mode. I am not found any normal solution with that situation.
> Only workaround to using promiscous mode to have normal operations with these
> cards. This isn't normal by me!
>
> I look and do some debug on bnxt driv
