OFED stack, RDMA, ipoib help needed

ask when will that get MFC'd to RELENG-9? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Gergely CZUCZY ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: FreeBSD 7.2 racoon and NAT-T

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:38:36 +0200 VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 02:32:48PM +0200, Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > > Hello, > > Hi. > > > > I'd like to ask for the state of that NAT-T support in 7.2. I've > > seen a note in ipsec-tools&#x

FreeBSD 7.2 racoon and NAT-T

oon needs to be patched with anything not in the port? Thanks in advance -- Sincerely, Gergely CZUCZY +36-30-9702963 ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "

Re: IPsec tunnel help

.138-217.150.130.163/unique; > > > Hope this helps. :-) > > Regards, > > -- > SOLANKI Jigar > --- > -- Sincerely, Gergely CZUCZY Harmless Digital Bt +36-30-9702963 ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

IPsec tunnel help

w proto {esp,ah,ipencap} from any to ($if_inetfw:0) keep state pass out quick on $if_inetfw proto {esp,ah,ipencap} from any to any keep state --- pf.conf snippet --- So the question is, what is wrong, why do I don't have any traffic going to the B host out of the fbsd box? And how can this

Re: TSO on VLAN interface, FreeBSD 7

And an other question. For now, if these options are manually set for the derived interfaces, will that work? On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:28:05 +0100 Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'd be also pretty interested in

Re: TSO on VLAN interface, FreeBSD 7

r capabilities) on VLAN > interfaces? > > Thanks, > Yony > ___ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL

Re: arp rewrite...

er all!) > >>> > >>>cheers > >>>luigi > >>>___ > >>>freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > >>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > >>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > >>> > >___ > >freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > ___ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test. Geniuses solve problems that arise. pgp1lyL4pJCZf.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Merging rc.d/network_ipv6 into rc.d/netif

6 makes more > > sense, and has better longevity. > > > > > And this would be a good time to change defaultrouter to > > > default_router! > > > > Or we could make it shorter and call it gateway. > > Well there is a difference between router and gateway. > I think that gateway would be a better word since from my > understanding that is what people use today. +1 vote for the "gateway". I always wandered why it's called "router", since "gateway" would be a more proper name for it. Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test. Geniuses solve problems that arise. pgpzQ46uFJ1Sf.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: carp on multiple interfaces

Thanks for the answers. I must have missed that part of carp(4). On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:44:29AM +0200, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:29:31AM +0200, Gergely CZUCZY wrote: > > > On a dual-carp scenario on two gateways when both the internal and > > th

carp on multiple interfaces

ut I'm interested in the way it would behave in a scenario like this. Had anyone met this already? Are there any workarounds/solutions for this? Thanks in advance Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test. Geniuses solve problems that arise. pgpj68oHMHok3.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: more interrupts with polling(4) on em(4)

On Sat, Jul 28, 2007 at 12:52:00AM +0200, Markus Oestreicher wrote: > Gergely CZUCZY schrieb: > >Good morning, > >I've noticed 33K interrupts/sec on an em(4) gigabit interface on > >a box. This many interrupts seemed a bit too high, so I thought > >I should enab

more interrupts with polling(4) on em(4)

the interrupt load? What am I doing wrong here? I don't think this is the expected behaviour, at least, not by me. Sincerely, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test. Geniuses solve problems that arise. pgpisc2sWHfjA.pgp Description: PGP signature

backends periodically rendered DEAD

und nothing really relevant. What data should I collect to be able to resolve this issue? I've sent this mail both to the pound and the freebsd-net@ mailing list because I don't really know where the issue really lies. Please take this into account in the replies. Sincerely, Gergely

Re: [fbsd] Re: jail addresses and default bindings

ct IP addresses to bind to. libpq (postgres's client library) doesn't offer this flexilbity, nor any other client libs i know at the moment. you cannot even configure a web broser(links, opera, firefox, etc) and tell it to which IPs it can use for browsing proposes and which ones are out of

jail addresses and default bindings

or from the host system to the jail. my question is, are there any work in progress around this? if it's going to be reviewed/fixed/etc, when will it going to happen, and into which stable/release branch is it planned? Bye, Gergely Czuczy mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Weenies test.