> Hi Brian,
>
> thanks for your help..i got the Ipv6 ppp working now with the latest version of ppp
>from your site
>
> But i encountered another problem, on freebsd 4.4-stable, you cannot
> use ifconfig to point to a destination address like below
>
> ifconfig tun0 inet6 3ffe:1800:100:1::1 p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been setting up a 4.4-RELEASE system for net booting and diskless
> operation with pxeboot, and I've run into a minor but annoying
> problem. It seems that if you boot with PXE you can't use dhclient.
> pxeboot config
I'm using dhclient to obtain an IP address from my ISP. They claim that I
am "hard coding" an IP because my IP doesn't seem to change. I know that
dhclient keeps a database of past leases and attempts to renew the same IP
whenever possible.
Is there anyway I can direct my ISP to some documen
as far as I can recall, the dhcp *server* mantains a /etc/lease files, where the
latest ip-addr corresponding to a specifc MAC address are tied one to another. The
situation is:
a) if there are 500 available ip for 1,000 clients, is is supposed that it will change
frequently
b) if there are 1
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Landon Stewart wrote:
> I'm using dhclient to obtain an IP address from my ISP. They claim that I
> am "hard coding" an IP because my IP doesn't seem to change. I know that
> dhclient keeps a database of past leases and attempts to renew the same IP
> whenever possible.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:35:10AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The patch below for dhclient-script fixes the problem for me.
Murray and I are very close to importing dhclient 3 (vs. the versoin 2 we
have now). I would prefer to wait until then before changing
isc-dhcp/client/scripts/freebs
Hi,
don't know what is the right forum to discuss this, but this is
certainly one. I have also Bcc-ed some people who might need to be
involved.
In the mbuf code, M_LEADINGSPACE always returns 0 when M_EXT is
set, instead of calling the second part of M_WRITABLE to check
whether there is a chanc
* Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011023 13:06] wrote:
>
> Hi,
> don't know what is the right forum to discuss this, but this is
> certainly one. I have also Bcc-ed some people who might need to be
> involved.
>
> In the mbuf code, M_LEADINGSPACE always returns 0 when M_EXT is
> set, instead of
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011023 13:28] wrote:
> * Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011023 13:06] wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > don't know what is the right forum to discuss this, but this is
> > certainly one. I have also Bcc-ed some people who might need to be
> > involved.
> >
> > In t
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:28:13PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
...
> > In the mbuf code, M_LEADINGSPACE always returns 0 when M_EXT is
> > set, instead of calling the second part of M_WRITABLE to check
> > whether there is a chance of writing into the cluster. This means
...
> I've seen this br
* Luigi Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011023 13:50] wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 01:28:13PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> ...
> > > In the mbuf code, M_LEADINGSPACE always returns 0 when M_EXT is
> > > set, instead of calling the second part of M_WRITABLE to check
> > > whether there is a chan
is there a way to build multipoint vpn's, using the FreeBSD's ipsec??
I am just guessing something like:
a) starlike vpn, 1 server, many clients ??
b) many-to-many conections, where each and everyone are server and client??
the many examples I get everywhere just specify point-to-point tunnelin
< said:
> Similar things could be done in m_pullup() to avoid the
> extra allocation.
Can't be done in m_pullup: the whole purpose of m_pullup is to
*guarantee* that the data in question will never be shared. It might
be worth having a new interface which doesn't provide such a
guarantee.
-GAW
> is there a way to build multipoint vpn's, using the FreeBSD's ipsec??
The X-Bone does that, a port is in /usr/ports/net/xbone. Also see its web
site at http://www.isi.edu/xbone/.
--
Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Information Sciences Institute
http://www.isi.edu/larse/
John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Polstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've been setting up a 4.4-RELEASE system for net booting and diskless
> > operation with pxeboot, and I've run into a minor but annoying
> > problem. It seems that if you boot with PXE you can't
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:35:10AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The patch below for dhclient-script fixes the problem for me.
>
> Murray and I are very close to importing dhclient 3 (vs. the versoin 2 we
> have now)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Cyrille Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, it would be better to provide a /etc/dhclient-enter-hooks
> while you are net installing the station, then remove it when
> finished.
>
> the dhclient-enter-hooks would be almost what you are doing :
>
> #!/bin/s
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 03:17:04PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > Similar things could be done in m_pullup() to avoid the
> > extra allocation.
>
> Can't be done in m_pullup: the whole purpose of m_pullup is to
> *guarantee* that the data in question will never be shared. It migh
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:00:34PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> Yes, you're right, I was mistaken in my paranioa, however you're
> missing the fact that one may want to allocate an EXT buf and still
> have it writeable.
Yes, but this is the sort of things that are better sorted out
in -cur
It's late in the day, my coffee's wearing off, and my brain is fried.
My new ISP uses private addresses for all internal routing. Let's say that
my new public address block is 1.2.3.0/24, and that the routing block
between their network and mine is 10.0.0.0/30, and my default router is
10.0.0.1.
As I have stated to Luigi in private and as I have stated more than
half a year ago now when this issue was first brought up by dwmalone,
I believe that the correct way to deal with this issue is to have
M_LEADINGSPACE and M_TRAILINGSPACE simply return the number o
1. You don't need the public address configured on the same nic as
the private - packets to the public address will be accepted even
if they come in via the outside nic.
2. Both ping and traceroute offer options to set the source addr. rtfm.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 05:41:18PM -0500, Kirk Strau
At 2001-10-24T00:03:51Z, Barney Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. You don't need the public address configured on the same nic as the
> private - packets to the public address will be accepted even if they come
> in via the outside nic.
I will occasionally need to connect *out* from gw1 f
Is it possible to authenticate users on /etc/master.passwd or by some other
method possibly RADIUS or an SQL table? storing the usernames and passwords
in the mpd.secret file is redundant and insecure IMHO.
Ryan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in t
On 23 Oct 2001, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> I already RTFM, and TFM doesn't say a thing about how to do what I want,
> except for command line options of specific clients, which doesn't solve my
> problem.
Yeah. The issue here is that the machine is picking the IP address as the
"closest" IP to the in
All:
I tried to search the archive for following, but could not
come up a answer.
Is there any work in FreeBSD networking community for a
multi-instance
TCP/IP stack. In other words a re-entrant TCP/IP stack. Anyone
who knows
the stack in detail, can you please throw a rough estimate
base
* Raju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011023 20:36] wrote:
> All:
> I tried to search the archive for following, but could not come up a answer.
>
> Is there any work in FreeBSD networking community for a multi-instance
> TCP/IP stack. In other words a re-entrant TCP/IP stack. Anyone who knows
> the stack
At 2001-10-24T01:30:35Z, Kris Kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And a tidbit just surfaced from the mud! Use ipfw + natd to nat anything
> that would directly come from / to the private address and use "natd -u -a
> 1.2.3.1" (assumes .1 is the gateway). Careful that you don't wind up
> looking
Hi all,
Now that ECN has become an IETF standard RFC, I just wonder
what is the status of the ECN implementation in FreeBSD hosts.
I know that it used to be part of the ALTQ patch but its
implementation seem to be stopped in the recent ALTQ versions.
Please kindly send your reply to me since I a
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:59:18PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>
> Well, we have a whole public /24. Only the routing block is private, which
> I'm sure will seem like a better idea once I coerce this $@#!() FreeBSD box
> to bend to my will.
If you have a whole /24, and you need to do stuff oth
Shoichi Sakane wrote:
> > While investigating a problem, I noticed that the IPSEC code
> > is initializing the sp -- even when no one is using IPSEC.
>
> > It turns out that this really, really bloats the per socket
> > memory requirements, with the only real result being a lot
> > of extra proce
John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Cyrille Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMHO, it would be better to provide a /etc/dhclient-enter-hooks
> > while you are net installing the station, then remove it when
> > finished.
> >
> > the dhclient-enter-hooks would be almost
32 matches
Mail list logo
