On 3/5/07, Bruce M Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yar Tikhiy wrote:
>> We shouldn't cache route pointers anywhere anymore. It has been
completely
>> removed from the PCBs and things like gif and others.
>>
> Sounds like a good way to go, too! :-) Thanks!
>
gre(4) does very funky things wit
Yar Tikhiy wrote:
We shouldn't cache route pointers anywhere anymore. It has been completely
removed from the PCBs and things like gif and others.
Sounds like a good way to go, too! :-) Thanks!
gre(4) does very funky things with the route it caches to the tunnel
endpoint. Someone(tm)
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 11:44:12PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 12:03:05AM +, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> >>During testing of M_PROMISC I noticed a couple of issues with our CARP.
> >>
> >>1. carp doesn't seem to maintain input/output statistics on i
Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 12:03:05AM +, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
During testing of M_PROMISC I noticed a couple of issues with our CARP.
1. carp doesn't seem to maintain input/output statistics on its ifnet.
This should be OK. A carp(4) interface is just a place for CARP
se
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 12:03:05AM +, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> During testing of M_PROMISC I noticed a couple of issues with our CARP.
>
> 1. carp doesn't seem to maintain input/output statistics on its ifnet.
This should be OK. A carp(4) interface is just a place for CARP
settings to live.
During testing of M_PROMISC I noticed a couple of issues with our CARP.
1. carp doesn't seem to maintain input/output statistics on its ifnet.
2. carp doesn't seem to detect that the underlying route to the subnet
its address is exposed on changed to another interface.
Are these conditions no
