Thanks for the suggestion, but where do I get ipf? I don't see it in the
FreeBSD packages region under networking or security. The closest I see
in functionality I see is xinetd, but it only seems to allow me to specity
ip addresses to enable/disable, but does not seem to have an option to
speci
> Thanks for the suggestion, but where do I get ipf? I don't see it in the
it is part of the base system.
BTW both ipfilter and ipfw seem to do the job you want, so recommending
the use of one instead of the other is as technically sound as
saying to disconnect the network cable on the internal
Hi,
We have an ethernet host & many pseudo ethernet interfaces
configured. Suppose I send a packet to pseudo ethernet interface. The
reply from pseudo ethernet interface is sent through the physical
interface. This response, has the IP address of the physical interface
instead of the IP a
Hello, FreeBSD community!
Firstly, excuse my English! ;-)
DESCRIPTION: I have Win2000 server in private network (IP = 192.168.1.1)
and FreeBSD box with two netcards (one of them plugged to 192.168.1/24
network, another - in ISP's LAN). On FreeBSD i have "closed"-style
firewall and some services
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Barney Wolff writes:
>1. Multi-homed hosts are in fact very common, especially in
>corporate environments. To get the right source addr in
>its reply, the server must open separate sockets on each
>of its host's addresses - as named and ntpd do. And t
On Mon, 2001/05/21 at 14:43:09 +0100, Ian Dowse wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Barney Wolff writes:
> >1. Multi-homed hosts are in fact very common, especially in
> >corporate environments. To get the right source addr in
> >its reply, the server must open separate sockets on e
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Moestl writes:
>
>I have a patch that does just that (although it just overloads
>IP_RECVDSTADDR for sendmsg instead of creating a new flag). I wrote it
>some time ago for a DNS server (the standard requires the source
>address to be the address the packet we
< said:
> I think the option should be renamed to something like IP_SENDSRCADDR
> just to avoid confusion - does this seem reasonable?
I think it's OK to add an additional name for the same control
message, but it should be possible (and documented) to use the exact
control message as was return
< said:
> Where an RFC mandates that the reply source address must be the same
> as the request dest addr
This is true for *any* protocol built over IP, regardless of what the
individual protocol specifications say. See RFC 1122 sections
3.3.4.2, 4.1.3.5, and 4.2.3.7. (It actually says ``SHOUL
Well there's SCTP ...
I have a general comment/question: Is there a policy on when it is
appropriate to create a FreeBSD-only feature? I can certainly
see it when there is a big win to be had. A feature like this,
though, if not likely to become part of Posix/Single-Unix or
whatever the term i
> On Sat, 12 May 2001 15:26:08 +0200 (CEST),
> David Delibasic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hellow
> Will IPv6 start supporting DUMMYNET and when ???
Sorry for the non-informative response, but I think it would still be
better than ignorance...
We, the KAME project, do not have any
Hi,
i have freebsd 4.2 stable.
what is difference between interface flags IFF_UP and
IFF_RUNNING?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
12 matches
Mail list logo
