Dear all;
I tried to build VPN tunnels between win2000
professional and FreeBSD4.2 with RACOON as IKE
negotiator. The procedures were described as
following:
1: I set up local policies on win2000.
2: I added rules into racoon.conf and/or psk.txt.
when I sended messages from win2000 to BSD VPN s
Look here:
http://www.daemonnews.org/200101/ipsec-howto.html
Regards,
Dmitry.
- Original Message -
From: "tang hongbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 1:53 PM
Subject: connection win2000 to racoon on freebsd4.3
> Dear all;
>
> I tried
I have had win2k working fine.
The trick is you need to use MMC and the ipsec snapin to map your own IPsec
policies, specifically remove the standard Kerberos authentication and
either use shared passwords, or certificates, both of which work with
Racoon. The phase 2 failure is indicitive that e
Hi!
I'm working on an IP encapsulation protocol, a la IPSec. Since I need to
manage sessions, I have "shared datum" among several IP packets, so I need
to splnet() / splx() the code. A simple way to do it is just to protect my
whole code inside a splnet(), and then splx() when it exits.
I that a
Hello!
I was trying to make routed (4.5 stable) and cisco 3640 (12.1(5)T) RIPv2 work
together. I discovered that MD5 authentications are not compatible. In
particular routed skips 4 bytes (family and type fields of auth data record)
of packet while computing hash for packet. This seems to be wron
If I set up a FreeBSD box as a gateway, how do I tell it not to route
Private IP addresses ( ie. "RFC 1918" addresses ).
Thanks, Brendan...
--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Wed 2002-02-20 (23:20), Brendan Kosowski wrote:
>
> If I set up a FreeBSD box as a gateway, how do I tell it not to route
> Private IP addresses ( ie. "RFC 1918" addresses ).
You firewall them look at /etc/rc.firewall the standard option blocks the
rfc 1918 addresses and a number of other spur
Hi.
I would like to test a multi-link over 2 different
types of device with MPD 3.7 (PPPoE and PPP over a
serial link) between two stations on freeBSD 3.5.
MPD works fine as client, so I would like to know if
MPD 3.7 could be a server PPPoE? Moreover, could MPD
be
a multi-link server?
T
>>> Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:57:21 +0900
>>> Hajimu UMEMOTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
ume> must be retained. But, it seems
ume>${fw6cmd} add pass ipv6-icmp from ff02::/16 to ::
ume> is not required. When I wrote this, maybe I might confused.
ume> But, I cannot test it just now. I'll test it
mpd does not know how to be a pppoe server.
HOWEVER the pppoed program is designed to turn the normal ppp
into a server. It is possible that archie might be able to
make mpd use pppoed (or embed it) but I'm pretty sure he hasn't done
it yet.
MPD Is a multilink server, yes.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002,
Hi!
It looks like all my fxp NIC can't upload more than 12Mbps while settled on 100baseTX
full-duplex.
It drops to 600kbps if I set it half-duplex... really weird..
If I set it full-duplex, I can download up to ~90Mbps which looks normal...
If I set it half-duplex, it drops to ~50kbps reall
> If I set it full-duplex, I can download up to ~90Mbps which looks normal...
> If I set it half-duplex, it drops to ~50kbps really slow...
That's because the switch that you're plugged into is still running at
full duplex. Hop onto the switch and force the port to half-duplex
and you should
Hi,
I have a Winbond based card with an Altima AC104 media interface. No matter
what I do i am not able to recognize the AC104 through the SIO interface. The
BMSR register value stays at zero. I have the datasheets of both the Winbond
and the Altima and everything looks ok.
So far i see the
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 12:13:25PM -0800, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > If I set it full-duplex, I can download up to ~90Mbps which looks normal...
> > If I set it half-duplex, it drops to ~50kbps really slow...
>
> That's because the switch that you're plugged into is still running at
> full du
To compare against simulation, I'm trying to collect any available TCP
implementations -- preferably compatible with a
recent(ish) kernel. We run 4.3, but could upgrade. I was hoping to find
the usual suspects -- Tahoe, Reno, Vegas, New-Reno, and SACK.
I realize this question is probably bette
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Brian White wrote:
> To compare against simulation, I'm trying to collect any available TCP
> implementations -- preferably compatible with a
> recent(ish) kernel. We run 4.3, but could upgrade. I was hoping to find
> the usual suspects -- Tahoe, Reno, Vegas, New-Reno, and
16 matches
Mail list logo