On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:52:36 +0100, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Just on one point:
> Second question:
> _ if I issue "ipfw nat 2 config if re0", I'll see the output "ipfw nat 2
> config if re0";
> _ if I issue "ipfw nat 2 config ip 192.168.0.1", I'll see the output "ipfw
> nat 2 config ip 192.168
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:32:05 -0300, lpa lpa wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Nikolay Denev wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have you looked at the natd(8) source code?
> yes but it's a complete application, it does a lot of stuff and I am
> not able to "clean" it up to become a simple divert
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:08:38 +0100, Dr Josef Karthauser wrote:
[ AppleMail msgs fail to quote properly in pine, so a partial quote: ]
> Looks like the first packet is being retransmitted, which means that
> the nat is probably misconfigured and the TCP connection is broken in
> some strange wa
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:40:16 +0100, el...@sentor.se wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Jan Bramkamp wrote:
[..]
> > I would avoid policies based on IP addresses and prefer to define policies
> > based on (pseudo-) interfaces e.g. route (and nat?) traffic from vlan123
> > through the VPN tunnel.
>
>
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 16:32:53 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 20/02/2016 6:22 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> > Dear Experts,
> >
> > I'm one of Linux refugees who several years ago migrated majority of
> > servers from Linux to FreeBSD and is happy since. When recently I needed
> > to set up
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:41:17 -0700, Russell L. Carter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am making myself learn better how ipfw works. I am curious about
> the optimal location of the NAT rule definition code. My immediate
> application is a generic NATing gateway with an outside iface armored
> up and an
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:47:39 +0100, bcs wrote:
[..]
> I use ipfw but "ipfw -q -f flush" didn't solve the issue. Here are my
[..]
> /boot/loader.conf:
> ipfw_load="YES"
> net.inet.ip.fw.default_to_accept=1
ipfw(8):
Tunables can be set in loader(8) prompt, loader.conf(5) or kenv(1) before
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 01:51:29 +, Rasool Al-Saadi wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 November 2015 2:05 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > On 11/06/15 11:08, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Hans Petter Selasky
> > wrote:
> > >> On 11/06/15 09:50, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > >>>
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 21:47:36 -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > I suspect it might not touch the c states, but better check. The safest is
> > disable them in the bios.
> >
>
> To disable C-States:
> sysctl dev.cpu.0.cx_lowest=C1
Actually, you want to set hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest=C1 instead. Oth
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:03:55 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 10/10/15 10:59 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > the nice folks at cloudflare implemented a nice feature
> > in netmap that puts some queues of the NIC in netmap mode
> > leaving others attached to the host stack
> >
> > https://blog.c
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:57:42 -0500, Mark Felder wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've only used IPFW in the past for the most basic of tasks. I'd like to
> use it with in-kernel NAT protecting both v4 and v6 and add
> dummynet/pipe later, but I have to get the basic working first. I'm
> either overlookin
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:51:11 -0600 (MDT), Warren Block wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ian Smith wrote:
>
O. Hartmann wrote:
> > > But that is an other issue and it is most likely
> > > due to the outdated documentation (that doc still uses port 37 for NTP
> >
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:47:57 +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:21:21 +0300
> Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, O. Hartmann
> > wrote:
> > > Hopefully, I'm right on this list. if not, please forward.
> > >
> > > Running CURRENT as of FreeBSD 1
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:44:53 +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Don Lewis wrote
> in <201508222103.t7ml3gax000...@gw.catspoiler.org>:
>
> tr> The example /etc/rc.firewall has provisions to use either in-kernel NAT
> tr> or natd for the open and client firewall types, but the simple filewall
> tr
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 01:13:31 +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 6/08/2015 1:02 AM, Sean Bruno wrote:
> > On 08/04/15 16:13, grenville armitage wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> I'm curious about the uptick of bugzilla chatter turning up in
> >> freebsd-net@ the last few days.
> >
> >> Whilst I ca
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:24:05 +0200, Guido Falsi wrote:
> On 06/12/15 10:07, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:59:40 +0200, Guido Falsi wrote:
> >
> > > > looks correct, assuming xl0 is your internal interface (better put it
> > in
> > >
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:59:40 +0200, Guido Falsi wrote:
> > looks correct, assuming xl0 is your internal interface (better put it in
> > a variable and use the variable in your rules imho)
>
> Forgot one thing, working around this block is as easy as changing the
> machine IP, teenager can le
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:49:06 -0700, John Reynolds wrote:
> Hello all, I've read in sections 30.4.4 and 30.4.3 of the handbook about
> using IPFW and I've got some clarification questions.
>
> 1) When you're using any sort of firewall rules outside the
> open/client/simple/closed, etc. pre-ca
On Mon, 4 May 2015 15:29:13 +, Barney Cordoba via freebsd-net wrote:
> It's not faster than "wedging" into the if_input()s. It simply can't
> be. Your getting packets at interrupt time as soon as their processed
> and you there's no network stack involved, and your able to receive
> an
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:10:51 +0200, Marek Salwerowicz wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I am trying to find correct setup of sysctl's for following machines (VMs
> under Vmware Workstation 8) to test large TCP window size:
>
>
> There are 2 boxes, each of them has following setup:
> - % uname -a
> F
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 18:11:55 +0100, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
> On 4 Apr 2015, at 16:59, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Thankyou Robert for this most interesting dissertation.
And thanks Hans for the provocation to draw it forth ..
cheers from the peanut gallery,
Ian
_
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:59:18 +, Gary Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:30:49PM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> > This snippet is from an old linux 2.4 router/firewall/proxy box, usually
> > clockwork. Clipped this while monitoring one night, saved it, forgot,
> &
This snippet is from an old linux 2.4 router/firewall/proxy box, usually
clockwork. Clipped this while monitoring one night, saved it, forgot,
but still find it curious and haven't seen anything similar before or
since. 31.13.70.1 & 173.252.102.24 are facebook, our guy 192.168.9.21
25/9/2014 w
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:34:20 +0100, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> On Wed, 11-Feb-2015 at 04:33:15 +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:26:52 +0100, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10-Feb-2015 at 13:49:23 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> > > > On 10.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:26:52 +0100, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> On Tue, 10-Feb-2015 at 13:49:23 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> > On 10.02.2015 00:21, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> >
> > > The ipfw man page says:
> > >
> > > Usually a simple rule like:
> > >
> > > # reassemble incoming fragments
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:14:41 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> On 05.02.2015 01:16, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>
> > I have such rules in my firewall:
> >
> > nat 9 config redirect_port tcp 192.168.134.2:16881 16881
> > redirect_port udp 192.158.134.2:16881 16881 redirect_port tcp
> > 192.168.134
On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:23:38 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> On 03.02.2015 13:04, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> >> Now to make stateful firewall with NAT you need to make some not
> >> very "readable" tricks to record state ("allow") of outbound
> >>
On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 22:17:25 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Now to make stateful firewall with NAT you need to make some not very
> "readable" tricks to record state ("allow") of outbound connection
> before NAT, but pass packet to NAT after that. I know two:
>
> (a) skipto-nat-allow patte
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:57:28 -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> > I could not resolve names with DNSSEC (for example, in freebsd.org
> > domain) on two of my installations, one with FreeBSD 11 and other with
> > FreeBSD 9.3.
> >
> > Sym
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:05:07 +0300, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> On 30.01.2015 05:33, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >> 12700 skipto 12900 ip from any to any keep-state 12800 deny ip
> >> from any to any 12900 nat 1 ip from any to any out 12999 allow ip
> >> from any to any
> >>
> >> And rules for
On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 06:01:06 +0100, Martin Hanson wrote:
(Warren Block wrote:)
> I would use three of these sections, one with the serial number of each
> interface. So:
>
> action "ifconfig $device-name name wan inet ..."
> action "ifconfig $device-name name dmz inet ..."
> action "ifconfig $devic
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:48:13 +0800, Sato Kentney wrote:
> I saw a email in dragonflybsd email list, someone is doing this!
> http://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/ipfw2/
We've had 'ipfw2' for a very long while. I couldn't help wondering why
DF wouldn't just import our many years of development and
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:15:30 -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote this message on Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 21:31 +1100:
[..]
> > So can anyone confirm that ep(4) is present on 9.3-R, even if only i386?
>
> Yeh, it looks like ep is in GENERIC on i386.. We also compile
In a conversation on questions@ re natd(8), Gary said he was about to
upgrade to 9.3 from some (embarrassingly :) old version, and I said:
>> Strangely, there's no man page for ep nor if_ep on 8.x or 9.x?
To which Gary replied:
> ugh. That will be interesting when my upgrade starts in a few
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014 15:38:33 +0330, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 8:30 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
[..]
> > : ipfw add 10 fwd localhost,7000 udp from any to any recv em1
> >
> > Given these are local packets and that ipfw(8) /fwd states:
> >
> > T
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:28:28 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2014 12:12 PM, "John-Mark Gurney" wrote:
> >
> > Can any one think of a good reason not to enable IPDIVERT sockets in
> > the ipfw module?
Yes, two. Nowadays people are just as or perhaps more likely to use
in-kernel NAT,
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:30:00 +0330, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 5:30 PM, Mark Felder wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but perhaps the
> > solution is in net/samplicator ?
> >
> > From the project's website:
> >
> > This simple program listens for UDP d
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 19:33:05, Ian Smith wrote:
> add 1000 divert natd ip from any to any in recv xl0
> add 2000 divert natd ip from any to any out xmit xl0
Oops, 'ip' should nowadays be 'ip4|ipv4' for divert rules, if ip6 is
configured on that interface. Last
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 02:52:22 +, John Case wrote:
> I would like to use sshuttle (http://github.com/apenwarr/sshuttle) on
> FreeBSD.
>
> I have it working for TCP connections, but it does not properly tunnel DNS
> requests. The documentation for sshuttle says that ipfw forward rules will
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:04:45 +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 15.06.2014 16:01, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:08:59 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > On 6/15/14, 3:00 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> > > > On 14.06.2014
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:08:59 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 6/15/14, 3:00 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> > On 14.06.2014 21:35, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> > > Luigi -
> > >
> > > Does table entry matching use a longest prefix match?
> > I'm not Luigi, but the answer is "yes" anyway :
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 00:10:26 +0800, bycn82 wrote:
Hi Bill,
> Sorry for waste you time to explain it again, I will read the code first.
Especially the code provided in free tutorials by your busy professor ..
> And the latest patch of `PPS` should be OK, I checked the logic carefully
> this t
On Mon, 19 May 2014 01:02:42 _0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Folks, i have two requests for you:
>
> 1. please do not complain about questions on this list related
>to a core network-related FreeBSD subsystem (netmap, dummynet,
>netgraph, tcp stack...) even if they are concerned with port
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 15:02:29 +0100, Willy Offermans wrote:
> Dear FreeBSD friends,
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 05:25:54PM +0100, Willy Offermans wrote:
> > Dear FreeBSD friends,
> >
> > I have a problem with my relatively new FreeBSD server. I came across the
> > problem when sending e-mai
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 20:44:51 +0100, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>
> > On 04.03.2014 09:58, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> > > Why do I need the explict fwd rule? As far as I can see the ipfw man page
> > > says nothing about skipto changing the
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:18:38 +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:00:30 +0430, h bagade wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've heard that disabling firewall
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:00:30 +0430, h bagade wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've heard that disabling firewall with commands or setting related sysctl
> parameter wouldn't increase performance and still firewalls participate in
> forwarding process. The only way to reach a better performance is making
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 14:03:27 -0700, Barney Cordoba wrote:
> Criticism is the bedrock of innovation.
Constructive criticism, with clear design even without code, can be.
Relentless negativity achieves nothing, and fails to compile.
Ian
___
freebsd-net
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 18:37:55 +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On 06.07.2013 14:47, Sami Halabi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Any hope?
>
> Have you used intedmediate "ipfw count log" rules between "ipfw nat" rules
> I recommended? If yes, why have not you show that logs yet?
> Include tcpdump output fro
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:50:51 +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 13:40, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:08:59 +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> >> On Jan 31, 2013, at 16:03, Matthew Luckie wrote:
> >>>
> >>&
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:08:59 +, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 16:03, Matthew Luckie wrote:
> >
> > 00510 allow ip from me to not me out via em1
> > 00550 divert 8668 ip from any to any via em1
> >
> > Rule 510 fixes it.
>
> Yep, it does. Can I ask someone to commit this t
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 07:57:04 -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Barney Cordoba wrote:
>
> > --- On Mon, 1/7/13, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >
> >> From: Erich Dollansky
> >> Subject: Re: To SMP or not to SMP
> >> To: "Barney Cordoba"
> >> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:51:11 -0800, Chris H wrote:
> in rc.conf, adding the following (order is important!), everything
> works as expected/desired/anticipated;
>
> --- begin rc,conf
> --
> ifconfig_ue0="ether ##:##:##:##:##:##"
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:25:24 +0400, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Many years ago i have already proposed this feature, but at that time
> several people were against, because as they said, it could affect
> performance. Now, when we have high speed network adapters, SMP kernel
> and
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 21:53:23 +0300, ? ??? wrote:
> Then my guess is wrong. I found the message, where similiar problem was
> described in ipfw mailling list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw/2011-March/004582.html, with
> no answer.
> Maybe it will be usefull for someb
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:31:25 +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Michael.
> You wrote 29 ??? 2012 ?., 19:01:08:
>
>
> >> I have interface (vr1), most of traffic on which is PPPoE. I have ipfw
> >> firewall, which splits traffic by interfaces via:
> >>
> >> add 2000 skipto 5000 a
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:40:21 +0430, h bagade wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have problem with setting mac option on ipfw rule. I want to drop all
> traffic but the traffic with source mac for example 11:22:33:44:55:66. I
> thought it would be possible using the not option to do the work and I have
>
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:02:40 +0300, Ivo Vachkov wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Monthadar Al Jaberi
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > > On 13 May 2012 06:46, Ivo Vachkov wrote:
> > >> Please define "working"? Porting? Kernel-
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:41:30 +0400, Dmitry S. Kasterin wrote:
[..]
> 9.0-STABLE / custom kernel
>
> > Also, if
> > you choose to use stateful TCP filtering, it is probably best to do it
> > in the manner shown in the ipfw(8) man page under DYNAMIC RULES. This
> > is very different from the w
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Nikolay Denev wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2012, at 4:41 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >> Hi--
> >>
> >> On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:24 AM, satish amara wrote:
> >>> I have question regarding the size of the state table kept i
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:52:53 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> ignore. i sorted it.
Too late, sucked in .. diff from prior config might be bone enough?
cheers, Ian
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:22:04 +0700, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Cc: eiv...@dimaga.com, c...@linktel.net, arc...@whistle.com,
> br...@awfulhak.org, suut...@iki.fi, n...@freebsd.org,
> Eugene Grosbein
I've trimmed ccs except net@, feel free to re-add if desired.
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at
On Sat, 21 May 2011, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 05/21/2011 01:58, Matthew Bowman wrote:
> > I have an uplink to my ISP on a 2 IP /30 network (1.1.1.0/30 in the
> > diagram)
>
> No help for your actual problem, sorry. I just wanted to point out that 1/8
> has been assigned by IANA to APNIC, so i
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011, J. Hellenthal wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 03:36:40PM +1000, Ian Smith wrote:
> >On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, rondzie...@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > > After the firewall rules are loaded, the rc script then loads natd,
> > > Once the syst
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, rondzie...@comcast.net wrote:
> After the firewall rules are loaded, the rc script then loads natd,
> Once the system is up, i can ipfw list and the divert command is,
> in fact, not there, but by this time natd is running. If I run the
> rc.firewall
> script interact
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, Ryan Coleman wrote:
> I've searched high and low and have no idea where to start to get
> this thing going... It's recognizing it now but I am not finding any
> details online (like people who have shared their full configuration
> details) on how they got the VirginMob
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Dave Johnson wrote:
> Hi all
>
>
> An IPFW problem when going from release to stable on 8.2
>
> An help gladly accepted
>
> LOG ON
>
> Flushed all rules.
> 00010 allow ip from 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.1 via lo0
> 00030 divert 8668 ip from any to any via bge0
> ipfw
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, Milen Dzhumerov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We're investigating some ways to perform symbolic execution of
> distributed systems and we're looking for real-world programs to
> test. The "routed" daemon[1] which is included with FreeBSD seemed
> like a good candidate and I wa
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 10:01:36PM +0100, Yamagi Burmeister wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
[..]
> > >You can switch to suspend mode with "acpiconf -s1". If all goes
> > >well, driver would put the controller into suspend mode aft
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Thomas Sevestre wrote:
> Le 21 oct. 10 à
> 19:04, Julian Elischer a écrit :
>
> > On 10/21/10 8:26 AM, Thomas Sevestre wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'm using freebsd 8 as a router. Say I have a sis0 interface. Th
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Paul Thornton wrote:
[..]
> With a Windows XP client (I know, it was nearby though) the following
> things happen:
>
> Server -> Client PPP CHAP Success (Welcome!! message).
> Server -> Client PPP CCP config request
> Server -> Client IPCP Config request (setting IP
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Paul Thornton wrote:
> I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right direction to get
> enough debug to troubleshoot a very annoying connection problem with
> PPPoE to a Cisco.
>
> I have a freshly installed 8.1-RELEASE amd64 box with a very simple
> PPPoE daemon set
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Tom Evans wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Ian Smith
> > wrote:
[..]
> > > > If a domain has no MX server, how's
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE:
> > >
> > > # host koin-nkz.com.
> >
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Hi!
>
> FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE:
>
> # host koin-nkz.com.
> koin-nkz.com has address 62.231.164.101
> Host koin-nkz.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
> This domain does not have MX records but NXDOMAIN seems to wrong return
> code to me. Think about
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> HZ=4000 ticks are 250ns, not 25ms.
Up way too late .. that's 250us of course, thanks Ryan.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubs
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Ryan Stone wrote:
> No, defining EM_WATCHDOG as 10 * hz should mean that the watchdog
> expires after 10 seconds no matter what your kern.hz is. hz is set to
> the number of ticks in a second.
Ok, one more probably wild punt .. Shtorm you say HZ=4000, giving:
===
And here
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Shtorm wrote:
> Yeah, saw this too, it was first boot for this install and I forgot to
> run tzsetup during flash image build.
>
> As for the latest log, this box connected to internet via em0, ntpd just
> says it have some peers to sync with after interface flap.
>
>
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Shtorm wrote:
>
> > Yow, 30 vlans, but only em1 is using vlans not em0?
> >
> > Is only em1 having watchdogs? I noticed you appear to
> > have flow control off, maybe turning it on would help.
> >
> > I would like to see the log messages from the watchdogs.
> > Jack
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm experiencing a deterministic situation on a development box I
> > manage when I do the following to enable ipfw and natd to bridge a
> > network with two
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm experiencing a deterministic situation on a development box I
> manage when I do the following to enable ipfw and natd to bridge a
> network with two bce(4) enabled NICs, where if I do the following
> steps below, then try to push a fe
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 07:00:53PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> Just an observation I made while transferring a file:
> >>
> >> # time scp floppy.img somehost:
> >> Passwo
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR kern/147191; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: Jose M Rodriguez
> To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: kern/147191: [ppp] Problems with ppp -nat [pppoe], ipfw,
> dummynet
> Date: Wed, 02 J
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > There a difference between the documented and actual behaviour of
> > "ipfw tee" which occurs when there are multiple rules with the same
> > number, e.g.
> >
> >rule_id number body
> >r1 500 tee port1 ds
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Stephane D'Alu wrote:
> On 13/11/2009 13:08, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Stephane D'Alu wrote:
> > > Is there a way to have tcpdump only showing packed that have pass the
> > > filtering rules, so to check that firew
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Stephane D'Alu wrote:
> Is there a way to have tcpdump only showing packed that have pass the
> filtering rules, so to check that firewall rules were correctly written and
> not letting unwanted packets in.
tcpdump sees packets before they're passed to the firewall coming i
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, rihad wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
>
> > I would suggest making just the HZ -> 4000 change for now and see how it
> > goes.
> >
> OK, I will try testing HZ=4000 tomorrow morning, although I'm pretty sure
> there still will be some drops.
Even if there are, I'd like t
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:06:25PM +1000, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 May 2009, Rui Paulo wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > If anyone is interested in testing out wireless mesh networking under
> > > FreeBSD, the proje
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Rui Paulo wrote:
> Hi,
> If anyone is interested in testing out wireless mesh networking under
> FreeBSD, the project has now reached a point where you can transfer
> packets between mesh nodes.
Always a good point to celebrate :)
> I try to keep the branch in sync with
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 12:17 AM 5/14/2009, Ian Smith wrote:
>
> >You can use fixed leases with MAC specified in dhcp for that,
>
> This lets you assign specific addresses to machines with specific MAC
> addresses. But it doesn't inhibit
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Brett Glass wrote:
> I need to find a way to do "MAC address locking" in FreeBSD -- that is, to
> ensure that only a machine with a particular MAC address can use a particular
> IP address. Unfortunately, it appears that rules in FreeBSD's IPFW are
> "stuck" on one layer: r
smell like just an IPFW
issue. I was pointing out that despite 20 times the CPU clock rate,
probably at least 30 times CPU throughput and likely 10 times the tick
rate, you appear to be suffering something like 30 to 900 times the
increased latency to be expected by traversing 'to
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Bakul Shah wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who responded. Looks like all the pieces
> to do this exist. All I have to do is to package it all in
> one program "sheriff" that watches various log files and
> pulls the trigger on the bad guy(s) at appropriate time.
Wild West im
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Artyom Viklenko wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> > I am wondering if there is a more dynamic and scriptable
> > firewall program. The idea is to send it alerts (with sender
> > host address) whenever a dns probe fails or ssh login fails
> > or smtpd f
behaviour with FreeBSD 6.3 as machine
> #2,, but it was ignored at the time. I've seen the problem with
> connections to two different ISPs.
>
> I can live with having a Web Proxy on FreeBSD # 1, but I am concerned
> that this issue will crop up someplace else.
>
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Sunday 25 January 2009 11:43:48 Mark Andrews wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
> > > I've never used mpd myself, but you might want to try adding the
> > > following line to /usr/local/etc/rc.d/mpd and see if it helps:
> > >
> > > # BEFORE: named
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Len Gross wrote:
> The following configuration works fine _until_ I make a change in MTU
> setting on the link between FreeBSD1 and FreeBSD2
>
> Internet
>|
> Router x.x.x.x
> 192.168.0.1/
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Sunday 25 January 2009 11:43:48 Mark Andrews wrote:
Doug Barton wrote:
> > > I've never used mpd myself, but you might want to try adding the
> > > following line to /usr/local/etc/rc.d/mpd and see if it helps:
> > >
> > > # BEFORE: named
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Skip Ford wrote:
> Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > El d?a Saturday, January 10, 2009 a las 05:54:56AM -0500, Skip Ford
> > escribi?:
> > > Matthias Apitz wrote:
> > > > What kind of software I could use in FreeBSD? There is some port
> > > > net/rp-pppoe but the man pages spea
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> >
> > > Why would a local interface, reported as up in ifconfig, not respond
> > > to a ping of its own IP address?
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
