> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> n...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of fbsdm...@dnswatch.com
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 3:24 PM
> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: two /24's and only one gateway - is routing still possible?
>
>
> On
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> n...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of fbsdm...@dnswatch.com
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:09 PM
> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: two /24's and only one gateway - is routing still possible?
>
>
> On
Hello:
Per Miroslav we upgraded to 7.2 Stable and are experiencing the exact
same issue upon soft reboot. The card will not pass traffic until the
device is powered down and powered back on. This behavior has been
confirmed on two identical pieces of hardware.
Regards,
Mike
--
Michael K
On 10/12/09 4:21 PM, "Doug Barton" wrote:
> Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
>>> n...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
>>> Sent: Monday, Oc
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> n...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
> Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 4:00 PM
> To: Doug Barton
> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Wacky DHCP values that work in windows but not in FreeBS
Well, in Cisco speak, the native vlan is untagged and used for
management. So, all your customer traffic comes in tagged with various
VLAN's and your management stuff remains untagged and localized to the
switching infrastructure.
So, I guess you would do it if you wanted to speak spanning tree
(
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org] On
> Behalf Of Gabe
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:14 AM
> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: FreeBSD network failover
>
> >Maybe try lagg(4) in Failover mode?
>
> On Tue, Dec
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:22 PM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: Michael K. Smith - Adhost; FreeBSD Net
> Subject: Re: bridging ath
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:19:42PM -1000, Randy Bush
>
> Andrew Thompson wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 04:07:00PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> current i386 thinkpad t41
> >>
> >> ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1/8"
> >> cloned_interfaces="bridge0"
> >> ifconfig_bridge0="inet 192.168.0.3/24 addm em0 addm ath0 up"
> >> ifconfig_em0="up"
> >> ifconfi
Ahh. See below.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Stremciuc
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 2:20 PM
> To: Max Laier
> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: carp not setting interfaces
>
> Hi Max,
>
> >
> > Y
Hello Steven:
Answer (not necessarily the correct one) below.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Stremciuc
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 12:00 PM
> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: carp not setting interface
> net.inet.tcp.path_mtu_discovery: 0
> net.inet.tcp.slowstart_flightsize: 1
> net.inet.tcp.local_slowstart_flightsize: 4
> net.inet.tcp.newreno: 0
>
I went through my settings and the only difference in the variables you
posted was:
net.inet.tcp.sendspace: 32768
You might try that to s
f the endpoint that should be here.
> && ifconfig fxp0 inet6 2001:618:456:: prefixlen 48
Interface prefixlen should always be 64 or more specific
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith NoaNet
206.219.7116 (work) 206.579.8360 (cell)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.noanet.net
Do you have a default route for your IPv6 network?
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Danny Horne
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 3:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IPv6 headaches
Hi all,
Hope someone can clear this up for me.
I'm t
t of the time you won't see
framing errors related to duplex mismatching.
Also, although this sounds contrary to sane thinking about hard coding of
duplex and speed, the Cisco will do better autosensing if you are using an
Intel ethernet card on the server. I'm not sure why, but I
>0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
>0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
>0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
> 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
>
> _
16 matches
Mail list logo