On 6-11-2015 09:09, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> On 06.11.2015 07:59, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>>
>>> Eugene Grosbein wrote on 11/05/2015 18:06:
>>>
Yes, it is. And there is a solution:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzil
On 01/07/2015 06:40, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:29 PM, wrote:
>
>> I just got a /56 block of ipv6 addresses today and I'm trying to figure
>> out how to use it.
>>
>> Before I go rebooting my server I wanted to ask if the information in the
>> handbook "https://www.freebsd.o
On 01/07/2015 05:42, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 7/1/15 6:56 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If we don't support this as part of the interface renaming stuff, it
>> would certainly be good to.
>>
>>
>> a-
>>
>>
>> On 29 June 2015 at 21:36, Wei Hu wrote:
-Original Message-
Fr
On 20/03/2015 10:42, Vaidas Damoševičius wrote:
> It's not cabling problem :)
>
> Another example with -b and -i :
>
> vd@v0s4:~ % iperf3 -u -c 1.2.3.4 -i4 -b1000m -P1
> Connecting to host 1.2.3.4, port 5201
> [ 4] local 1.2.3.3 port 10672 connected to 1.2.3.4 port 5201
> [ ID] Interval
On 11-1-2015 22:32, williamecow...@hush.ai wrote:
> Hello, I hope I can have some assistance.
>
> I am trying to get networking via wlan0 but without NAT or bridging (doesn't
> work on wifi unless WDS).
>
> say my my main network is 10.10.2.0/24, gateway/internet is 10.10.2.1, my ip
> is 10.10.
Op 17 nov. 2014 om 16:37 heeft Dag-Erling Smørgrav het volgende
geschreven:
> Willem Jan Withagen writes:
>> The constraints as you put them are indeed rather tight. There is little
>> to be done about it. I was not aware of the fact that 11.0 is planned
>> for relea
On 17-11-2014 12:42, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2014, at 11:20 , Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>
>> I think I understand your critique, but then on the other hand I wonder
>> where the reluctance is As I read it, things are going to be enabled
>> in CURRENT only
On 17-11-2014 12:02, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Craig Rodrigues
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> PROPOSAL == I would like to get feedback on the following
>> proposal. In the head branch (CURRENT), I would like to enable
>> VIMAGE with this commit:
>>
>>
>> PATCH ===
On 14-8-2014 17:20, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
>> I've found the notation ipnr:something rather frustrating when using
>> ipv6 addresses. Sort of like typing a ipv6 address in a browser, the
>> last :xx is always interpreted as portnumber, UNLESS you wrap it in []'s.
>> compare
>> 2001:4cb8:
On 14-8-2014 17:53, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
> On 8/14/2014 11:27 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>> On 14-8-2014 14:46, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2014 08:08, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>>>> I've found the notation ipnr:something rather frustrating when u
On 14-8-2014 17:20, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> On 14.08.2014 16:08, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>> On 2014-08-14 13:15, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Alexander V. Chernikov <
>>> melif...@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>>
>
On 14-8-2014 14:46, Lee Dilkie wrote:
>
> On 8/14/2014 08:08, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>> I've found the notation ipnr:something rather frustrating when using
>> ipv6 addresses. Sort of like typing a ipv6 address in a browser, the
>> last :xx is always interpreted a
On 2014-08-14 13:15, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Alexander V. Chernikov <
melif...@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
On 14.08.2014 14:44, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov <
melif...@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
On 14.08.2014 13:23, L
Hi,
I'm sending a zpool from one server to in neighbor.
Send size:
zfs send -v -R tank@now \
| mbuffer -4 -m 100M -O box:
Receive side:
mbuffer -4 -m 1000M -I \
| zfs receive -e -v tank
This keep the 1Gbit link between them reasonably full. Most of the time
mbuffer rep
Op 7 jan. 2013 om 22:41 heeft Barney Cordoba het
volgende geschreven:
>
>
> --- On Mon, 1/7/13, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>
>> From: Willem Jan Withagen
>> Subject: Re: kern/174851: [bxe] [patch] UDP checksum offload is wrong in bxe
>> driver
>> T
On 2013-01-05 16:17, Barney Cordoba wrote:
>
>
> --- On Fri, 1/4/13, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
>
>> From: Willem Jan Withagen
>> Subject: Re: kern/174851: [bxe] [patch] UDP checksum offload is wrong in bxe
>> driver
>> To: "Barney Cordoba"
>
On 2013-01-01 0:04, Barney Cordoba wrote:
> The statement above "assumes" that there is a benefit. voIP packets
> are short, so the benefit of offloading is reduced. There is some
> delay added by the hardware, and there are cpu cycles used in managing
> the offload code. So those operations not
On 5-9-2011 16:35, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 5 September 2011 16:01, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:37:08PM +0200 I heard the voice of
>> Ivan Voras, and lo! it spake thus:
>>>
>>> There is no symmetrical "me4" option which leads me to think that
>>> "me" matches only ipv4 and
On 16-7-2011 14:40, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> On 15-7-2011 18:47, Steven Hartland wrote:
>> Been trying to identify an strange network stalling issue while using
>> scp or rsync between two machines, initially at remote locations.
>>
>> The behaviour has proved qui
On 15-7-2011 18:47, Steven Hartland wrote:
> Been trying to identify an strange network stalling issue while using
> scp or rsync between two machines, initially at remote locations.
>
> The behaviour has proved quite difficult to track as it seems to require a
> number or factors combined before
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:04:43PM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:42:58PM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:52:32 +0100
Luigi Rizzo said:
While we are at it, might I suggest one more "nice" thing...
For several of my projects
Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 07:40 AM 9/7/2009, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
Well this turns out to be a pilot error, in that I created such a
complex bandwidth evaluation that on buffer full the packet got tossed
in the application.
:(
Just stripping that out, and just do a
try send
while(not send
Manish Vachharajani wrote:
Hmm, what version of FreeBSD are you using? I don't know the solution
but I wonder if it is related to a similar problem we are having with
TCP connection scaling, both under 7.2 and 8.0 over a 10 Gb link.
We've been trying to track it down, and if you see it for UDP a
k Adaptor'
class = network
subclass = ethernet
And Yes the idea is to do something similar over a 10Gb interface.
--WjW
Manish
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
First of: I've been googleing for about a day, but I'll take any suggestions
fo
First of: I've been googleing for about a day, but I'll take any suggestions
for more info.
What I'm trying to do is get as much 1440 byte UDP packets out of an em
device. And when tat works, get as much out of the 7 em devices that this
board has. :)
Currently I run into trouble at 250*174
I have the strange IPv6 forwarding messages in my security output.
The link-local ip-nr is not lokal on this system, so is there another system
in my network that does this ipv6.
But I've not yet found a system with fc:ba as last bytes in my arp-table?
Can anybody tell me why I get these messa
Raffaele De Lorenzo wrote:
Hi all,
I attached a patch that solve this problem. I will send a PR as soon as
possible.
Instructions:
Patch the follow files:
/usr/src/sbin/ipfw/ipfw2.c (patch is ipfw2.c.diff)
/usr/src/sbin/ipfw/ipfw2.h (patch is ipfw2.h.diff)
/usr/src/sbin/ipfw/ipv6.c (patch is
Reply below, and an also reorganised the yours...
raffaele.delore...@libero.it wrote:
Hi,
Running 7.2 I tried to insert
this into my IPFW rules
# ipfw add allow udp from any to 2001:xxx:3::
113,2001::3::116 \
dst-port 10001-10100 keep-state
ipfw: bad netmask
``:3::113''
a
Hi,
Running 7.2 I tried to insert this into my IPFW rules
# ipfw add allow udp from any to 2001:xxx:3::113,2001::3::116 \
dst-port 10001-10100 keep-state
ipfw: bad netmask ``:3::113''
also:
# ipfw add allow udp from any to trixbox.ip6 dst-port 10001-10100 keep-state
ipfw: hostna
Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
My experience is that Multicast in nice in theory and experiment, but
when
push comes to shove it does not completely deliver.
I don't know exact requirements and application used, but given IP TV
deployments relying heavily on multicast, and all other "VoD"
technologie
Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
I'm looking for a stream exploder.:)
1 2Mbit stream in, and as many as possible out.
And 7*1Gb = 14Gbit, so I'd like to be pushing 7000 streams.
(One advantage is that they will be UDP streams, so there is
a little less bookkeep
Erik Trulsson wrote:
Ok, well I've never seen a router with 1 port. I
thought we were talking about building a router?
He did not say anything about a single port router.
He talked about single port network cards. You can
use more than one of them when building a router.
Well lets nitpick.
Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
I have a 1.2Ghz Pentium-M appliance, with 4x 32bit, 33MHz pci
intel e1000 cards. With maximum tuning I can "route" ~400mbps
with big packets and ~80mbps with 64byte packets. around 100kpps,
whats not bad for a pci architecture.
To reach higher bandwiths, better busses
I have a 1.2Ghz Pentium-M appliance, with 4x 32bit, 33MHz pci intel
e1000 cards.
With maximum tuning I can "route" ~400mbps with big packets and ~80mbps
with 64byte packets.
around 100kpps, whats not bad for a pci architecture.
To reach higher bandwiths, better busses are needed.
pci-express ca
Julian Elischer wrote:
Forgot to mention: 4.7-PRERELEASE :(
ugh... no tables
and 45000 lines will be bad.
load an old PC with 6.2
and seet it up as a bridge with 2 interfaces.
and use ipfw table to filter on the bridge
If I could have easy access to the box, that would be the sollution. Bu
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Gary Palmer wrote:
> Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
> > I received a call from a customer this morning that all of his websites
were
> > no longer on line. So After some resetting and more I turnout that there
> > was a
> > serious overl
Barney Wolff wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
Willem Jan Withagen (wjw) writes:
Now I'm pretty shure that ipfw does not stretch indefinitely to contain
perhaps something like 100.000 ip-numbers (would be a nice test. :) )
Actually, it should
Gary Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:29:14PM +0200, Willem Jan Withagen wrote:
I received a call from a customer this morning that all of his websites were
no longer on line. So After some resetting and more I turnout that there
was a
serious overload on his server. Over 500 clients
[ I guess I haven't been paying too much attention during ipwf class :(
And I got the suggestion to try FreeBSD-net@ instead of security. But
I'm not subscribed to this list, so please Cc: me.
]
Hi,
perhaps somebody could give some pointers.
I received a call from a customer this morning th
39 matches
Mail list logo
