adrian Exp $
$FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/ath/ath_rate/sample/tx_schedules.h,v 1.1 2011/01/28
08:57:58 adrian Exp $
$FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/usb/wlan/if_uath.c,v 1.23 2010/09/02 03:28:03 thompsa Exp
$
Ian
--
Ian Freislich
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailin
;
device = 'Atheros AR9285 Wireless LAN 802.11 a/b/g/n Controller
(AR928x)'
class = network
It's also only able to maintain an 18-24Mbps connection, where
before I had stable 54Mbps.
Ian
--
Ian Freislich
___
freebsd-net@f
the server to:
setsockopt(desc->accept_fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_NODELAY, &x, sizeof(x));
It's now faster than on linux.
Perhaps this is one of the causes of "my loopback is slow vs linux".
FWIW, I couldn't find a way to turn off dealyed_ack on just loopback
interface.
Ian
--
Ia
Bruce Simpson wrote:
> Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> > ...
> > I can't quite remember exactly why imr_ifindex doesn't work, but
> > on my hosts which have several hundred interfaces and my OSPF
> > sessions are never on the interface that has the default route,
>
Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
> Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> > --- lib/sockopt.c.orig 2007-08-21 18:32:56.0 +0200
> > +++ lib/sockopt.c 2008-08-13 09:07:20.0 +0200
> > @@ -231,6 +231,7 @@
> >else
> > mreqn.imr_address = if_addr;
>
wine
You can add net/quagga to that list as well.
The following patch solves it, and you'll need patch-lib-sockopt.c
for multicast to work correctly on -CURRENT.
--
Ian Freislich
--- zebra/kernel_socket.c.orig 2008-12-22 09:59:00.0 +0200
+++ zebra/kernel_socket.c 2008-12
any serious
workload to just plain forget about using Intel CPUs.
Ian
--
Ian Freislich
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
aces the interface
in promiscuous mode. I've noted that the em driver stops tagging
ethernet frames when hardware tag insertion is enabled and the
interface is in promiscuous mode.
I don't know enough to determine whether this is a hardware or
softw
media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX )
I'm not sure if this hardware supports TSO or even if the em driver
part has been committed yet.
Ian
--
Ian Freislich
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
cause if I send my test SYN packet from B (src ip
> 10.0.0.2), the returning SYN+ACK triggers rule #9 (allow ip from any to any)
> and the packet is not forwarded out the fxp0 interface.
>
> I am still at a loss as to why the packet counts get updated and yet the
> p
0.0.2 in via fxp1
ipfw add 65534 allow ip from any to any
Is there any particular reason for wanting a stateful firewall in
this case?
Ian
--
Ian Freislich
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
hat you perormed the test you described and the results
(count updated etc) actually occured? I would expect rule 9 to
catch the packet on its way back and rule 11 never to be triggered.
Maybe rule 9 should be a checkstate rule.
Ian
--
Ian Freislich
Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> > Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > Here is the next preview patch for the ipfw to pfil_hooks conversion:
> > >
> > > http://www.nrg4u.com/freebsd/ipfw-pfilhooks-and-more-20040621.diff
> >
possible to take a look? I would also be happy to create a
> > new patch to fix this problem against ipfw with pfilhooks if that's
> > what it's going to take to get a fix committed.
>
> It's ok, I don't need new patches against the converted pfil_hooks
>
en though the work has already been done.
Now that you're actively working on that part of the source, would
it be possible to take a look? I would also be happy to create a
new patch to fix this problem against ipfw with pfilhooks if that's
what it's going to take t
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > I would suggest that you find out exacly how they measure your
> > traffic useage. ie do they measure only packets that were switched
> > by their router or just any and every single byte that their
> > router's ethernet interface sees. The first is IMHO much more
Lars Eggert wrote:
> Adam wrote:
> > My ISP is placing strict restrictions on how much I can transfer each
> > month, with high penalties for exceeding their limits. However, they
> > don't provide any way for their customer's to check to see how much
> > they've transferred, so we end up transferr
17 matches
Mail list logo
