Bill Fumerola wrote:
> [ this is probably more appropriate for -net, -hackers bcc:'d ]
>
> On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:35:01AM +0100, andrew mejia wrote:
>
>
>>[andrew]$ exactly what i would suggest. a single
>>NIC can handle multiple assigments pretty easily,
>>unless you're expecting mega-
I don't know if I can quantify the issue very well, but since moving
from 4.4-RELEASE to 4.5-RELEASE on my laptop, I've noticed that
TCP-over-IPv6 sessions get stuck rather easily. They end up in a state
where no further I/O will take place. TCP-over-IPv4 does not have this
problem.
This mach
First, let me start out by saying that I have hacked in Kame's NATPT
functionality into this kernel, so it's entirely possible that is
causing this, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Here's a stack trace from this panic:
(above this is the trap, savecore and reboot)
#17 0xc018b973 in rn_match (v_a
I notice that kame has NATPT (a mechanism to let IPv6-only hosts
interact with the IPv4 Internet) and that it has not been imported. I
would like to see if it's possible to import just that bit of
functionality as an independent unit (it gets us one step closer to
killing IPv4). It appears to
One more bit of data. The document needed for doing the work I mention
is here:
http://developer.intel.com/design/network/drivers/srom_409.pdf
If no one else steps up, I will probably give this a try in my copious
spare time.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
I have done some more investigating. I believe if_dc is not correctly
interpreting the SROM. It turns out that on Znyx cards, the SIA block is
not in the format the driver expects (there is a format bit you need to
check to see what format it is in).
I manually re-interpreted the data in the S
I have a Znyx quad 21143 card.
dc0: port 0xd800-0xd87f mem
0xdf00-0xdf0003ff irq 12 at device 4.0 on pci2
dc0: Ethernet address: 00:c0:95:e1:af:10
miibus0: on dc0
dcphy0: on miibus0
dcphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto
(the other 3 ports look pretty much the same
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> Netgraph was designed to be a link-level patch-pannel within ONE machine..
> I guess you might be able to use it to bridge between two networks
> that are on different machines... but
>
Having successfully used a combination of vtund, if_tap
