Bruce M Simpson wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 03:00:44PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
So I will be updating the patch in the next 24 hours. Given that it
seems stable for values 2047 <= n <= 4095 with SOCK_DGRAM I am inclined
to commit with the maximum raised to 4095 and lazy allocation in
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 03:00:44PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> So I will be updating the patch in the next 24 hours. Given that it
> seems stable for values 2047 <= n <= 4095 with SOCK_DGRAM I am inclined
> to commit with the maximum raised to 4095 and lazy allocation in place.
Committed on HE
Hello,
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 08:40:30PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Thanks for your effort - I will try it on monday at work in a test
> configuration I have setup with
> a hundred gre/vpn tunnels and ospf. This configuration needs a
> multicast membership group
> of 100.
Thank you! I have
Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:12:27PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
Therefore, joining the same group 20 times on different interfaces
would exceed IP_MAX_MEMBERSHIPS.
Fixing this in any way would still break the ip_mroute_kmod ABI and
as such is a HEAD change.
Hello,
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:12:27PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> Therefore, joining the same group 20 times on different interfaces
> would exceed IP_MAX_MEMBERSHIPS.
> Fixing this in any way would still break the ip_mroute_kmod ABI and
> as such is a HEAD change.
A patch for this issue,
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:12:29PM -0400, Stephen Clark wrote:
> >I'm loosely of the opinion that the membership array should be
> >variable length, and that we should default it to 20, but have a
> >significantly larger maximum. It's not horribly efficient, but also
> >wouldn't be so particula
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Stephen Clark wrote:
I'm loosely of the opinion that the membership array should be variable
length, and that we should default it to 20, but have a significantly
larger maximum. It's not horribly efficient, but also wouldn't be so
particularly terrible either.
I think
Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:28:01PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
A user recently reported a problem with running into IP_MAX_MEMBERSHIPS
on a system running FreeBSD with IPv4 forwarding enabled, and running
the OSPF routi
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:28:01PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
A user recently reported a problem with running into IP_MAX_MEMBERSHIPS
on a system running FreeBSD with IPv4 forwarding enabled, and running
the OSPF routing protocol.
More background
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 01:28:01PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> A user recently reported a problem with running into IP_MAX_MEMBERSHIPS
> on a system running FreeBSD with IPv4 forwarding enabled, and running
> the OSPF routing protocol.
More background. People may be wondering why this is even
A user recently reported a problem with running into IP_MAX_MEMBERSHIPS
on a system running FreeBSD with IPv4 forwarding enabled, and running
the OSPF routing protocol.
I have been investigating how to address this problem.
Background:
A raw socket was exceeding the permitted number of group me
11 matches
Mail list logo
