Rich Wales wrote:
>
> Earlier, I reported an ARP problem on a 4.2-STABLE bridge system.
>
> A few people wrote me privately, advising me to include a firewall
> rule passing UDP packets on port 2054 to/from the IP address 0.0.0.0.
>
> I've tried this, but it doesn't help any. I should mention,
Julian Elischer wrote:
> try using netgraph bridging instead.
Can't do this until the netgraph code supports ipfirewall or ipfilter.
Rich Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.webcom.com/richw/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in
At 14:26 3-2-01 -0800, Rich Wales wrote:
>I'm running -STABLE (cvsup'ed on 26jan2001) on a machine with the
>BRIDGE option, bridging between two PCI NICs (rl0 and xl0).
>
>I'm having ARP problems. Machines on the "rl0" card are unable to
>get a hardware address for the bridge. (For whatever reas
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> Not all cards support bridging. The bridge(4) manpage _used to_ have a
> list of cards that work. Now all it says is,
>
> "Interfaces that cannot be put into promiscuous mode or that don't support
> sending packets with arbitrary Ethernet sou
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Rich Wales wrote:
> Earlier, I reported an ARP problem on a 4.2-STABLE bridge system.
>
> A few people wrote me privately, advising me to include a firewall rule
> passing UDP packets on port 2054 to/from the IP address 0.0.0.0.
>
> I've tried this, but it doesn't help an
Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> Are you using different IP addresses on both NICs? And if so,
> can machines on rl0 get the MAC for xl0? And can machines on
> xl0 get the MAC for rl0?
No, I'm using only one IP address for the bridged pair of NICs. (The
IP address is assigned via "if
Robert Watson wrote:
> There used to be a kludge that mapped the ether_header.ether_type
> field of non-IP packets into the UDP port number for the purposes
> of certain IPFW rules when bridging. This was pretty awful. :-)
I should add something else. My bridge =does= pass ARP info
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Rich Wales wrote:
> I'm running -STABLE (cvsup'ed on 26jan2001) on a machine with the BRIDGE
> option, bridging between two PCI NICs (rl0 and xl0).
>
> I'm having ARP problems. Machines on the "rl0" card are unable to get a
> hardware address for the bridge. (For whatever
I'm putting a 4.2 R firewall in for a ppoe connection. (sympatico)
Is there any workaround I can use so I don't have to reduce the MTU on all
the internal stations ?
It's a mix of Windows 9x and Macs. And I've found only one utility capable
of adjusting MTU on Macs.
Can anything be done on the fr
>ed0: port 0xd400-0xd41f irq 9 at device 9.0
>on pci0
>ed0: address 00:80:48:c6:1d:ec, type NE2000 (16 bit)
>pcn0: port 0xd000-0xd01f mem
>0xe700-0xe71f irq 9 at device 10.0 on pci0
>pcn0: Ethernet address: 00:20:78:b1:74:4a
>xl0: <3Com 3c900-TPO Etherlink XL> port 0xb800-0xb83f irq 1
John Telford wrote:
>
> I'm putting a 4.2 R firewall in for a ppoe connection. (sympatico)
> Is there any workaround I can use so I don't have to reduce the MTU on all
> the internal stations ?
> It's a mix of Windows 9x and Macs. And I've found only one utility capable
> of adjusting MTU on Mac
At 10:22 4-2-01 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>John Telford wrote:
> >
> > I'm putting a 4.2 R firewall in for a ppoe connection. (sympatico)
> > Is there any workaround I can use so I don't have to reduce the MTU on all
> > the internal stations ?
> > It's a mix of Windows 9x and Macs. And I've
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 02:23:34AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> "Geoffrey Crompton (RMIT Guest)" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:50:01PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > "Geoffrey Crompton (RMIT Guest)" wrote:
> > > why are you doing this?
> > > there are already 4 pseudo interfac
> John Telford wrote:
> >
> > I'm putting a 4.2 R firewall in for a ppoe connection. (sympatico)
> > Is there any workaround I can use so I don't have to reduce the MTU on all
> > the internal stations ?
> > It's a mix of Windows 9x and Macs. And I've found only one utility capable
> > of adjust
At 22:50 4-2-01 +, Brian Somers wrote:
> John Telford wrote:
> >
> > I'm putting a 4.2 R firewall in for a ppoe connection.
(sympatico)
> > Is there any workaround I can use so I don't have to reduce the
MTU on all
> > the internal stations ?
> > It's a mix of Windows 9x and Macs. And I've f
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> At 22:50 4-2-01 +, Brian Somers wrote:
> > > John Telford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm putting a 4.2 R firewall in for a ppoe connection. (sympatico)
> > > > Is there any workaround I can use so I don't have to reduce the MTU
> > on all
> > > >
> At 10:22 4-2-01 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >John Telford wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm putting a 4.2 R firewall in for a ppoe connection. (sympatico)
> > > Is there any workaround I can use so I don't have to reduce the MTU on
all
> > > the internal stations ?
> > > It's a mix of Windows 9x and M
Hmm my timing for this topic seems right on :)
Since I ran out of disk space trying to update to -stable this afternoon
(now that's another topic for another day "Why so much space to keep up
with -stable, when /stand/sysinstall can do an inplace update ?")
So should a throw another drive in this
Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> Interesting. 4 interfaces in 2 clusters.
I have a DSL connection with multiple static IP addresses at home.
The rl0/xl0 cluster is so that I can have my main home machine appear
to be directly on the Internet, even though in fact it is sitting
behind the bridge
Robert Watson wrote:
> at one point I was experimenting with userland bridging
> software based on BPF, . . . An interesting side effect
> of this was that locally sourced packets that came out of
> the IP stack would not be bridged, . . . nodes on either
> side of the bridg
I tried switching the interface on which the IP address was configured.
I'm now giving xl0 (the "external" interface to the DSL modem and the
Internet) the IP address, while rl0 (the "internal" interface linking
the bridge machine to my main home machine) has no IP address.
No difference. The br
May i suggest to try a recent (feb.2, 2001) version of the code ?
there have been long-standing problems with bridging on 4.x and
in particular some related to the handling of broadcast packets (ARP
requests are among them) which hopefully are fixed now.
You need to default your firewall to open.
> > A better approach would probably be to set a semaphore before
> > starting, and release it at the end, and keep interrupts enabled
...
>
> Dear, luigi-san.
>
> Thank you for mail.
> As I set "net.inet.ip.dummynet.expire=0", if it will affect
> only to ip addresses founded newly when a
Rich Wales wrote:
>
> Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > try using netgraph bridging instead.
>
> Can't do this until the netgraph code supports ipfirewall or ipfilter.
why can't you use routing?
(ipfw only REALLY works with IP packets anyhow..)
OR
you can do what some people do which is make a
> May i suggest to try a recent (feb.2, 2001) version of the code ?
> there have been long-standing problems with bridging on 4.x and
> in particular some related to the handling of broadcast packets (ARP
> requests are among them) which hopefully are fixed now.
> You need to default your firewall
25 matches
Mail list logo
