Hello,
Is it possible to close a connection from an accept filter, for example,
in order to prevent an incoming connection with a malformed request body
from ever reaching the userland?
Cheers,
Eugene
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http:/
Greetings,
I just submitted a very simple PR/patch -
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=127591 - which fixes spurious
but annoying warnings against DNAME RRs (annoying because they spam
syslog at auth.notice level).
The patch should not cause any regression, because it just suppresse
Hello,
A quick question: Is bridge(4) supposed /not/ to automatically configure
an IPv6 link-local address?
I'm trying to use it to bridge a wired segment and a wireless segment,
and router advertisement over bridge0 wouldn't work because, with
bridge0 lacking a LL address, the router uses a
Than you! The new patch fixed the problem. I'll put it under test for
a few more days and let you know if any regression is seen.
Cheers,
Eugene
Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:17:27AM -0700, Eugene M. Kim wrote:
> Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> >I've updated
Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
I've updated patch again. There was a bug that disabled
multicasting filter. Back out previous patch and try again.
The URL is the same as before.
> Regards,
> Eugene
rtsol still doesn't work with vr0 being in non-promiscuous mode.
However, apparently vr0 picked up ro
FWIW, I stumbled upon this while browsing through old -net archives...
Apparently re(4) had a similar (same?) problem.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-April/034336.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-April/034339.html
Cheers,
Eugene
_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Would you try patch at the following URL?
> http://people.freebsd.org/~yongari/vr/vr.cam.patch
Nope, didn't fix it (symptom's still the same)... ;_;
Regards,
Eugene
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebs
Jinmei-san,
Thank you for the response.
What I wonder is how one would define the "typical, default" case.
Although RFC 2461/2462 does not say much about it, I am having a hard
time seeing in which case it would be beneficial to advertise deprecated
prefixes as preferred by default.
On the other
Greetings,
Unless disabled with -s flag, rtadvd(8) automatically picks up on-link
prefixes from the routing table and includes them in RA messages. In
doing so, rtadvd does not seem to distinguish preferred prefixes
(preferred lifetime > 0) from distinguished ones (pltime = 0), but
simply adverti
Greetings,
I am running a VPN gateway, where interfaces come and go frequently. I
set up BIND so that it listens on all interfaces.
It seems that, instead of listening on a wildcard IPv4 address (*:53,
that is), BIND monitors for address changes on all interfaces and
creates a separate listening
I haven't tried this myself, but you may want to try using
"unique:" instead of "require" as the policy level, with
set to a unique policy identifier, which is an integer you
can pick between 1 and 32767 inclusive, for each security policy. This
makes the security policy "claim" the security a
JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:23:22 -0800,
"Eugene M. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
One caveat is, though, you can't let rtadvd pick all the prefixes from
internal interfaces (i.e. those that don't have rltime#0 specified),
be
I guess the proper way would be rtadvd's prefix lifetime configuration
(maxinterval, pltime and vltime). I set it to maxinterval#20,
pltime#90, vltime#130. You *must* also delete old prefixes from the
internal interface(s), or rtadvd will continue advertising them because
it will think those
Link-local addresses are ambiguous; you will have to further qualify the
address by appending '%interface' onto it (e.g. fe80::2bd:d4ff:fe77:8%fxp0).
Eugene
Gunnar Olsson wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to force an ethernet address to an IPv6 node, with the ndp
command, but getting following message:
x
14 matches
Mail list logo
