On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, James wrote:
Does anybody know of any IPv6 traffic generators, to stress test v6
routers? No need for setting hop by hop options, 6to4 tunneling, etc
options. just plain unicast v6 packet generator.
Web Polygraph[1] supports IPv6 addresses[2].
Polygraph is designed to test HTT
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> See man getifaddrs:
>
>
>http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=getifaddrs&sektion=3&apropos=0&manpath=FreeBSD+4.7-RELEASE
>
> You can obtain l2 addresses with this system call.
I was not aware of the "l2 addresses" limit(?), and the man page do
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Damian Gerow wrote:
> I've tried setting to ifconfig_fxp0 lines in /etc/rc.conf, the first
> for the media selection and the second for the DHCP instruction, but
> that didn't work -- the card stayed in autoselect.
>
> Is there any way to manually set the NIC media, while ret
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Chuck T. wrote:
> Yes portablity is a concern, unfortunately my program will
> probably be used on Linux more than FreeBSD, sigh. I starting to
> read about ioctl() and SIOCGIFADDR which appears to be portable
> (and a pain).
We had to write portable local address detection
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, John Angelmo wrote:
> I was thinking of cunstructing a small routerbox in my sparetime.
> Now since FreeBSD is my choise of OS i was thinking of a small box
> silent box.
>
> So how can I combine speed, size, silence and price?
>
> I was thinking of vias small buget systems
Ivo,
Looks like your question is specific to Squid rather than FreeBSD.
Please see Squid FAQ at www.squid-cache.org and ACL-related comments
in the default squid.conf file. The info you need is there. If you
need further help, please post to squid-users mailing list, after
searching its archive.
rest of our
setup.
Thank you,
Alex.
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have two Ethernet NICs inside a PC. I want TCP/IP packets to
> leave one NIC, go on the wire, and eventually arrive at the other NIC.
> I do not want the kernel to be smart a
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Nick Rogness wrote:
> I had a brief thought of using an upstream device that could route
> the appropriate nat'd addresses to each interface.
This is not an option, unfortunately. The required functionality has
to be implemented inside one PC (appliance). No exter
Hi there,
I have two Ethernet NICs inside a PC. I want TCP/IP packets to
leave one NIC, go on the wire, and eventually arrive at the other NIC.
I do not want the kernel to be smart and shortcut the path. I want the
outside world to see the packets and to think that my two NICs are two
PCs
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> This is getting way off topic, but here is a business case
> illustration.
>
> Are you perhaps doing what the Q/A people at a previous job were
> doing, and stress-testing the crap out of a machine on a Gigabit
> LAN, at or near wire speeds, when in th
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 09:01:21AM -0600, mark tinguely wrote:
> > Too bad there are not companies throwing money around to fund a good
> > rewrite...of course there is some competative advatange to do so only
> > for themselves.
>
> Anyone want to fund
quot;man ip".
Alex.
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> >
> > Are you running out of ephemeral ports? See net.inet.ip.portrange
> > sysctl or do your own port management.
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Nguyen-Tuong Lon
Are you running out of ephemeral ports? See net.inet.ip.portrange
sysctl or do your own port management.
Alex.
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Nguyen-Tuong Long Le wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a software that simulates web clients and servers to create
> network congestion (for the purpose of doing resear
On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The following program binds *:1000 to a socket, and then tries to
> bind 200.47.36.254:1000 to another socket, the error i gets is
> "Address already in use". Why?
*:1000 includes 200.47.36.254:1000 by definition of bind(2). Binding
two sockets to o
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> what are you planning to do after checking IPv6 support in the kernel?
> applications should be written so that it would work on both
> IPv4-only, IPv6-only and IPv4/v6 dual stack kernels, by using
> getaddrinfo(3) and
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Andy [TECC NOPS] wrote:
> Just built a new kernel with
>
> options IPFIREWALL
> options IPDIVERT
>
> and all went in ok. However, when I
> user the ipfw command to add a rule
> (or when rc.firewall does) I get the
> following error message:-
>
> ipfw: getsocketopt(IP_FW_AD
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> if you do care about this, you may want to restructure the data structure
> used to store/match interface addresses. At the moment it is a linear list,
> so the matching of incoming packets is probably Very Time Comsuming!
We have a patch (posted to this
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Tobias Fredriksson wrote:
> No you will be able to bind normaly to a.b.c.1, but i have had the
> problems where if i specify anything to bind a.b.c.2 and it has bound on
> all ip's aliased on the computer.
Tobias,
I know that I can bind to any (and all) of the 1000+
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> the source of confusion is just the fact that when you ifconfig an
> interface, you really give two distinct pieces of information:
> 1. an ip address that the machine recognises as its own
> 2. an address for a subnet connected to that interface.
> Wit
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Yu-Shun Wang wrote:
> What you pointed out below is true. But I am more
> interested in the relative performance since the number
> I measured were under exactly the same setup and traffic
> condition.
I believe it is a common pitfall to assume that sa
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Yu-Shun Wang wrote:
> Another (sort of) related question: I've got the bandwidth
> measurements for different algorthms using netperf. I was
> really surprised that IPComp did so bad. Any ideas?
AFAIK, netperf TCP_STREAM test (and may be others) is extremely
21 matches
Mail list logo
