On mar. 6 févr. 22:49:54 2018, David Athay wrote:
>
>
> > On 6 Feb 2018, at 22:47, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> >
> > Well, that explains everything. You should use "vlan and not port
> > 22" and "vlan and host X.X.X.X" (same without "not") when filtering
> > vlan-tagged traffic as documented in t
On mar. 6 févr. 21:03:12 2018, David Athay wrote:
> I was originally using 11.1-RELEASE but I have since updated to 11-STABLE.
> Weirdness still persists
>
> $ tcpdump --version
> tcpdump version 4.9.2
> libpcap version 1.8.1
> OpenSSL 1.0.2n-freebsd 7 Dec 2017
>
> $ uname -aUK
> FreeBSD s5.pk
Hi,
All the machines listed below are 11.1-RELEASE.
I have a setup with a LAN of VMs routed by two routers configured with
CARP. If I reboot a VM, the NDP for the default route is unknown:
root@:~ # ndp -n fe80::204:92:100:1%em0
Neighbor Linklayer Addre
On jeu. 1 juin 20:49:29 2017, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Is there a dynamic DNS update method associated with Ipv6's address
> assignment system? Since the assignment is "stateless" it obviously
> (and does, in my experience!) move. I can deal with it via a couple of
> shell scripts, and there are
On mer. 24 mai 12:17:50 2017, William Gathoye wrote:
> In this use case, you make the assumption that my gateway is actually
> the first one to respond, this is why you select only the first answer
> using -c1. But as you can see below, if I remove that argument, several
> routers are answering to
On lun. 22 mai 14:03:54 2017, William Gathoye wrote:
> Btw, if I wanted to use link local addresses to communicate with the
> provider next hop gateway, how can I know the local link fe80 IPv6
> address of that gateway since my provider (OVH) doesn't disclose it?
You can try to ping6 the IPv6 mult
On mar. 16 mai 23:24:17 2017, William Gathoye wrote:
> The FreeBSD host is configured like this:
>
> ifconfig vtnet0 /32
> route add -iface vtnet0
> route add default
>
> ifconfig vtnet0 inet6 prefixlen 64
> route add -inet6 -iface vtnet0
> route add -inet6 default
D
On lun. 24 avr. 14:35:43 2017, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Because this network haven't router and traffic in this network must be
> not routed anywhere, it is 10G connection between workstation (Windows)
> and storage server (FreeBSD). Bith systems in question have another
> connection to common rou
On dim. 23 avr. 22:48:05 2017, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello Freebsd-net,
>
> I have Point-to-Point Ethernet connection one end of which FreeBSD 11, an
> other end is Windows. It is, really, patch-cord between tow systems, not a
> some tunnel, but physical Ethernet cards.
>
> I want to ann
On mar. 20 déc. 09:57:44 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 20.12.2016 4:01, Alarig Le Lay пишет:
> > On Tue Dec 20 02:34:29 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> > > Well, you can always use brute force instead:
> > >
> > > ipfw nat 169 config reset ip 89.234.186.1 &a
On Tue Dec 20 02:34:29 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Well, you can always use brute force instead:
>
> ipfw nat 169 config reset ip 89.234.186.1 && \
> ipfw add 60 nat 169 ip from 169.254.0.0/16 to any out xmit igb0
>
> That's ugly but works.
I will work just by side effect: by doing this, I wi
On Tue Dec 20 01:51:17 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 20.12.2016 1:46, Alarig Le Lay пишет:
>
> > Is it possible to avoid this behaviour and reply with the public IP
> > (89.234.186.1) instead?
>
> try: sysctl net.inet.icmp.reply_from_interface=1
If an AS choose to go
Hi,
I have a router that is mutli-homed with BGP. One of my peers is using
an RFC3927 address for the connection. If I traceroute to host behind
that route where we use a route via this peer to reply, the ICMP reply
display that link-local IP:
1. AS12876 195-154-86-1.rev.poneytelecom.eu (195.15
e same
place (i.e. in the same vlan on the same switch) so I don’t understand
why I need to take an address from 2a00:5884:8200::/40.
--
Alarig Le Lay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
any idea about this issue? Did I make a mistake or is it a
bug?
Thanks,
--
Alarig Le Lay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
15 matches
Mail list logo
