Hi,
If you want to use sppp with Frame Relay, you should update your sppp
driver.
Here you will find not only sppp driver but also cx, ct and cp drivers:
http://www.cronyx.ru/pub/cronyx/adapters/cfbsd341.tgz
Kurakin Roman
Murray Taylor wrote:
> I am establishing FreeBSD 4.2 Release (from the
Murray Taylor wrote:
>
> I am establishing FreeBSD 4.2 Release (from the CD Roms) on a Compaq A550
> and
> I need to setup a connection to a Telstra frame relay interface (which has
> yet to be installed)
>
> (A) Has anyone in .AU done this?
ummm not in AU
but it is a standard right? (I've had
Peter,
Some of the questions here (aliasing multiple interfaces individually) were
answered in my other email on your ipfw question. But let's look at the nat
forwarding issue.
My rc.conf contains these lines:
natd_enable="YES"
natd_interface="ed1"
natd_flags="-f /etc/natd.conf"
Now,
Peter,
I speak under correction - I am a user, not an author, of natd and ipfw.
I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong
ipfw does not allow you to specify multiple if names for the incoming or
outgoing packets, although you can specify both the in- and out- if names in
one rule.
Satyajeet Seth wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I tried to use ng_ether and ng_bpf as follows:
>
> fxp0(lower) --- (bhook)[bpf](nomatch)(hook1)(upper)fxp0
>[ ]( match )(hook2)not connected
>
> $ ngctl mkpeer fxp0: bpf divert bhook
>
> $ ngctl name fxp0:divert bpf0
>
> $ ng
Thanks for the reply Julian ... and I have a few more questions now..
Telstra are asking ME to tell THEM what protocol and interface we will be
using,
chosen from the following:
Protocols
1) ITU-T (CCITT) Q933 Annex A
2) ANSI T1.617 Annex D Telstra defa
Murray Taylor wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply Julian ... and I have a few more questions now..
>
> Telstra are asking ME to tell THEM what protocol and interface we will be
> using,
> chosen from the following:
>
> Protocols
> 1) ITU-T (CCITT) Q933 Annex A
> 2) ANSI T1
Hi
I tried the example at:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/man/man4/ng_bpf.4
When I type:
tcpdump -ddd ether dest xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
in a telnet session the command gave the raw BPF instructions, as
expected.
However, at the system console the same command gave the message:
fx
Satyajeet Seth wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I tried the example at:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/man/man4/ng_bpf.4
>
> When I type:
>
> tcpdump -ddd ether dest xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
>
> in a telnet session the command gave the raw BPF instructions, as
> expected.
>
> However, at the sy
yeah and thats the reason for the 'or' in that sentance...
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jonathan Graehl wrote:
> > do 'netmask 255.255.255.255' instead or 'netmask 0x' since this is
> > an alias... for some reason otherwise services may not bind to the ip
> > correctly
>
> Why would this be? T
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> At 01:06 27-2-01 +0100, Tobias Fredriksson wrote:
>
>
> >On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Drew J. Weaver wrote:
> >
> > > Say I have a main server Ip address of (This is completely made up)
> > > 209.190.53.51, and I have 32 IP addresses blocked to
I hope this is the right place to ask; if not, a gentle nudge in
the right direction would be most appreciated.
I registered for an IPv6 tunnel from www.freenet6.net, and they
send me the following Perl script (modified to work behind a NAT
router according to the "IPv6-behind-NAT" instructions a
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
>
> >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for aliased
> >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias) IP.
>
> Everybody is saying use 255.255.255.255 for an alias. Noone is giving
> I don't understand this either. To my mind it's a bug if it doesn't
> work with the full netmask for an IP alias address.
you're right. submit patch.
randy
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> >
> > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for aliased
> > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias) IP.
no this is incorrect. you just have to make sure that the aliased
Hi
Please read my comments below:
> > I tried the example at:
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/man/man4/ng_bpf.4
> >
> > When I type:
> >
> > tcpdump -ddd ether dest xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
> >
> > in a telnet session the command gave the raw BPF instructions, as
> > expected.
> >
>
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> > >
> > > > [ Matt Emmerton wrote: ]
> > > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for
aliased
> > > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias)
IP.
>
> no this is incorrect.
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [ Matt Emmerton wrote: ]
> > > > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for
> aliased
> > > > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless o
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> the source of confusion is just the fact that when you ifconfig an
> interface, you really give two distinct pieces of information:
> 1. an ip address that the machine recognises as its own
> 2. an address for a subnet connected to that interface.
> Wit
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> > the source of confusion is just the fact that when you ifconfig an
> > interface, you really give two distinct pieces of information:
> > 1. an ip address that the machine recognises as its own
> > 2. a
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Tobias Fredriksson wrote:
> No you will be able to bind normaly to a.b.c.1, but i have had the
> problems where if i specify anything to bind a.b.c.2 and it has bound on
> all ip's aliased on the computer.
Tobias,
I know that I can bind to any (and all) of the 1000+
Alex,
> Can you be more specific please? Is it just a harmless warning
> message or a true error? In other words, will anything break if I use
> a.b.c.2/24 alias on the interface with the a.b.c.1/24 primary address?
technically i think it is a real error to use a /24 alias, but i
am not 10
Josef Karthauser wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> >
> > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for aliased
> > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias) IP.
> >
> > Everybody is saying use 255.255
> Josef Karthauser wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 07:16:14AM +0100, Rogier R. Mulhuijzen wrote:
> > >
> > > >The point is that you need to use a netmask of 255.255.255.255 for
aliased
> > > >IPs on FreeBSD, regardless of the alias of the primary (non-alias)
IP.
> > >
> > > Everybody is say
On Feb 27, 11:43am, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
} Subject: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_input.c
} jlemon 2001/02/27 11:43:14 PST
}
} Modified files:
} sys/netinet ip_input.c
} Log:
} When iterating over our list of interface addresses in order to determine
} if an arriving
> > > > Everybody is saying use 255.255.255.255 for an alias. Noone is giving
> > > > reasons why.
>
>Exactly. I never got a good answer to this when I first stumbled upon it,
>and I still haven't. All I know is that this is the way it needs to be done
>in order for things to work properly.
Ok
26 matches
Mail list logo
