Hello,
ifconfig fxp0 inet 10.0.0.1/24
ifconfig fxp0 inet add 10.0.1.1/24
both
arp -s 10.0.0.2 1:1:1:1:1:1 pub
arp -s 10.0.1.2 1:1:1:1:1:1 pub
work.
however
arp -s 10.0.0.2 auto pub
works, but
arp -s 10.0.1.2 auto pub
fails with no interface found for 10.0.1.2.
Tested with FreeBSD 4.10-STABL
Hello,
I'm interested in opinions/comparisons how ipnat and pf perform
on FreeBSD 5.x in real working large NAT setups (about 50Mbit/s, few
thousands of workstations, 300k of mappings or more). Problems noticed,
memory and CPU consumption, mbufs utilization etc.
TIA,
--
Paweł Małachowsk
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 03:38:08PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> I'd suggest to choose PPPoE, not PPTP, because the latter is quite
> complicated and violated by some client implementation. You will
> not find any problems with PPPoE, since ng_pppoe is compatible with
> all known PPPoE implementat
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 07:29:25PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Although I'm not expert on mpd, I couldn't resist mentioning that not
> all MHz are created equal and you probably achieve more performance
> difference by carefully choosing a well performing NIC than the absolute
> MHz on the b
Hello,
I would like to ask people using mpd about performance on particular hardware
setups. I am interested in the numbers of sessions (probably PPTP with weak
encryption) and total bandwith, that can be achieved with, e.g.:
. 300MHz CPU,
. 1GHz CPU,
. 2GHz CPU.
Won't PPPoE behave better than PPT
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 07:12:18PM +0300, Iasen Kostov wrote:
> This is the segment of code:
>
>if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) == 0 &&
>SIN(rt_mask(rt))->sin_addr.s_addr != 0x)
>rt->rt_flags |= RTF_CLONING;
BTW, http://www.freebs
> With this ruleset, UDP-traceroute doesn't work (ICMP- works):
Just feeding list archives:
This problem was also described and analysed by Andre Albsmeier on IPFilter
mailing list [1].
Shouldn't be IPFilter v3.4.35 backed out from RELENG_4 until fix arrives?
[1]
http://groups.google.pl/groups?
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 11:31:07AM -0700, Fargo Holiday wrote:
> cramster# ipfw show
> 00050 14819576 8458459132 divert 8668 ip from any to any via dc0
> 00100 250 32470 allow ip from any to any via lo0
> 002000 0 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8
> 003000
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 02:28:36PM -0700, Fargo Holiday wrote:
> Here are the rules I've been trying, let me know if this not correct:
>
> ipfw pipe 1 config bw 50Kbit/s queue 10 delay 2000ms #outbound
> ipfw pipe 2 config bw 150Kbit/s queue 10 delay 2000ms #inbound
> ipfw add deny icmp from any
On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 12:54:08AM +0200, Pawel Malachowski wrote:
> I can see weird behavior of this command:
> traceroute -s privateIP -P UDP dst
> Outgoing UDP packets are translated, ICMP time-exceded message comes back,
> but traceroute shows '* * *'. ;)
v3.4.3
Hello,
Can anobody here confirm that newest 3.4.35 IPFilter in RELENG_4 works with
no problems when IPNATing traceroute UDP (+ICMP response) packets?
I can see weird behavior of this command:
traceroute -s privateIP -P UDP dst
Outgoing UDP packets are translated, ICMP time-exceded message
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:48:57PM +0400, Nickolay A. Kritsky wrote:
> bash-2.05b# head -c 100 /dev/tap0 |less
Try tcpdump instead.
--
Paweł Małachowski
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsu
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 09:36:11AM -0400, Dave Dolson wrote:
> > How can a body do ethernet over ip on FreeBSD? I have heard that
> > with netgraph you can do that. Has anybody tried this or maybe some
> > other way? The goal is to connect two L2 networks on remote sites.
>
> I have tried i
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 01:23:52AM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> AFAIK, ipf takes precedence on ipfw for incoming packets on -STABLE,
> and this is of course symmetric for outgoing ones.
No, outgoing packets are passed through ipf/ipnat before they reach
ipfw (at least in STABLE, PR kern/46564).
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:00:32PM +0100, Markus Oestreicher wrote:
> > http://freshmeat.net/projects/freebsd-hut
> >
> > i have never used this on a large-scale (i've never considered pre-1.0
> > software "stable"), but have used it many places for failover inside
> > clusters with satisfactory
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 04:44:30PM +0100, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> ip address on the vlan subnet (say ping 62.233.44.132), and I tcpdump -i
> vlan20, I see arp requests going out, on the tcpdump I launched on the
> according host, I see the arp request coming in, the response going out,
> but I don
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 12:00:01AM +0100, Spyou wrote:
> mine stays unchanged before, during and after running freevrrpd (parent
> ether & vlan managed by freevrrpd) .. that's why i was thinking this is a
> problem with the FXP driver ...
> When killing :
> Nov 26 23:23:42 f1 freevrrpd[410]: re
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:38:40PM +0100, Spyou wrote:
> Damn ! The mac address of you vlan (and, i suppose, of you ether card) has
> changed ...
Ether card MAC and other vlans are unchanged. Thats what we are expecting. :)
> Mine doesn't change at anytime (except if i fire freevrrpd up and cre
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 10:56:58PM +0100, Spyou wrote:
> This solution (w/o vlans) works .. the downtime is something like 3/4
> seconds .. wich is acceptable for my applications :)
>
> but i can't work w/o vlans :(
R1:
% ifconfig vlan0 create vlan 1 vlandev de0
% ifconfig vlan0 inet add 10.255
On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 10:37:35PM +0100, Spyou wrote:
> Now, i need to isolate some servers into vlans. So i create vlans on the
> interface managed by VRRP, i told VRRP to use various vlans instead of the
> parent interface ... And ... here's the probleme ...
>
> as you might know, VRRP modif
20 matches
Mail list logo
