Hi.
I have a trouble that an application packet-injecting by pcap(bpf)'s
pcap_sendpacket function doesn't communicate to FreeBSD host, but
can communicate to other machine. So I researched, and I noticed
that sys/net/if_ethersubr.c has a structured issue(?)(I didn'
Hi Kip&Erwin!
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:51:21 +0100
Erwin Lansing wrote:
> > RTF_WASCLONE and RTF_LLINFO routing flags. The userland applications
> > such as "arp" and "ndp" have been modified to reflect those changes.
> > so I guess it's not so easy.
> > How many other ports are affected?
>
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:30:34 -0400
Larry Baird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please find attached two patches for adding FAST_IPSEC NAT-T support to
> FreeBSD 6.x. The patch "freebsd6-fastipsec-natt.diff" is dependent
> upon Yvan's IPSEC NAT-T patch "freebsd6-natt.diff" which can be found at
> http
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:01:35 +0200
VANHULLEBUS Yvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes it was a clean RELENG_6_1.
> > >I compiled this on i386 and am64 just a few days ago and everything
> > >was fine.
> > >Perhaps contact me off-list and we'll post a summary once we found the
> > >problem?
> > Mayb
I'm finding IPSec NAT-Traversal support patch for 6-stable and
7-current. But I could only find it for 6.0-R and 4-stable:-(.
Where is IPSec NAT-T support patch?
And why does IPSec NAT-T support be comitted into src tree?
NetBSD already supports IPSec NAT-Tr
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 13:20:50 +0900
Norikatsu Shigemura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sometime using the environment IEEE802.1a SNAP on ethernet.
> But FreeBSD's network stack supports only EtherframeII as IP. So
> I researched how to use on IEEE802.1a
I am sometime using the environment IEEE802.1a SNAP on ethernet.
But FreeBSD's network stack supports only EtherframeII as IP. So
I researched how to use on IEEE802.1a SNAP. I think that following
approch is good. But I couldn't do it:-(.
# ngctl mkpeer .
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:19:05 +0100
Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marvell/SysKonnect made the source code to the YukonII chips available
> today under a BSD license:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~andre/mykbsd60x86-8.12.1.3-src.tgz
> I haven't tested the driver yet and I don't know if
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100
Doug Rabson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC
> standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone
> else has an objection.
I disagree. Because fwip and fwe can exist together
