> > > 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-d
At 02:48 19-2-2002 -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Zviratko wrote:
>
> >
>[SNIP]
> >
> > I will try that, but I guess default route has precedence over ipfw.
>
> Not in the case of ipfw fwd. The routing decision seems to be
> made before ipfw fwd changes the packe
At 21:19 19-2-2002 +0100, Marcel de Vries wrote:
>I use mpd to setup a PPTP (gre encapsulation) connection between interface
>ep0 (public) and my Alcatel ADSL modem.
>Don't ask me why but it's the concept of a BIG telecom company we all love
>to hate in the Netherlands. KPN TELECOM.
>
>And most
At 17:58 20-2-2002 +1100, Brendan Kosowski wrote:
>Hi,
>
>My ed0 interface has been set up using a typical LAN style IP address of
>192.168.1.100.
Can you supply the output of 'ifconfig' and 'netstat -rnf inet'?
Doc
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe fr
< said:
> net.inet.tcp.newreno. (At the risk of exposing my naivete, does disabling
> New-Reno leave me with ... Reno? Or possibly some FreeBSD hybrid?)
It leaves you with FreeBSD pre-New Reno. That's Reno, plus
high-resolution timers, plus some retransmit-avoidance stuff that goes
along with
Hi,
I'm looking at a packet trace taken of an xl card under 4.5, and I see
bad IP and TCP/UDP checksums. The release notes state that checksumming
maybe offloaded to the NIC now, but I'd still expect them to be correct
in a packet trace!
More specifically, the IP checksum is always zero, whil
* Lars Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020221 11:18] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at a packet trace taken of an xl card under 4.5, and I see
> bad IP and TCP/UDP checksums. The release notes state that checksumming
> maybe offloaded to the NIC now, but I'd still expect them to be correct
> in a pa
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:54:20AM +, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> > I tracked a thread from Aug 2001 in which Harkirat Singh announced his
> > SACK implementation. But, this thread seems to have ended prematurely and
> > grep'ing for SACK in current does not turn up anything interesting. Wha
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> I actually looked at the patches, and by visual inspection,
> they broke the flow for standard TCP connections when SACK
> was disabled. This was also verified with TBIT.
> So even if the SACK implementation was correct
> (which I haven't checked in deta
tehn we need to tell teh author..
he seems to want then to be used . I'm sure he'd be reponsive to being
told about the problems..
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:54:20AM +, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> >
> > > I tracked a thread from Aug 2001 in which Hark
I am having serious problems with the ipfw of FreeBSD. I am trying to use
the forward of packages, and I am having the following problem: the ipfw
doesn't make forward for non-local addresses! The options in the kernel are
active (IPFIREWALL, IPFIREWALL_FORWARD, etc) and the option of forward of
F
11 matches
Mail list logo
