Hi
Have You any sample ?
and i want to know how the packet is writen on pcap buffer and how they will
forward ? if they are forwarded after the saving or they will never be
forwarded ?
i mean that is this scenario true ? or not
packet > ip_input -copy of packet---> writen to pcap
Hello (again :)
I'm doing my best, but I'm in a mess trying to understand
the interrup levels and if I should take it into account
to implement what I want to implement :)
As I'm working with KAME source code, I will CC this question.
(KAME people always help me a lot :)
I have the following sit
The slow network response is that clients inside my firewall begin to have
timeout when accessing web and mail and I begin to have problem reaching the
box with ssh.
I'll try the ifconfig down/up this afternoon.
other questions was:
- what is "Slow network response"?
- does ifconfig down/up h
Hi,
Sppp still have a quantity of bugs. Here is one of them:
--- if_spppsubr.c.origWed Oct 16 18:41:16 2002
+++ if_spppsubr.cThu Nov 21 20:13:16 2002
@@ -1672,12 +1672,12 @@
case STATE_ACK_SENT:
break;
case STATE_CLOSING:
-sppp_cp_change_state(cp
I'm trying to implement a type of transparent proxy for UDP. My idea was to
use ipfw to redirect all incoming UDP packets to my server, for example:
ipfw add fwd 127.0.0.1,9000 udp from any to any recv em0
However this doesn't seem to work: my server only receives UDP packets that
are addressed
man ipfw says to fwd:
fwd | forward ipaddr[,port]
Change the next-hop on matching packets to ipaddr, which can be
an IP address in dotted quad or a host name. The search termi-
nates if this rule matches.
If ipaddr is a local address, then matching packets will be for-
warded to port (or the por
According to the manual text quoted below, in my example the ipaddr is
localhost and the port is 9000.
So all UDP packets (matching packets) should be forwarded to 9000 (port) on
the local machine.
What I'm seeing is that no packets are forwarded to port 9000, and I only
receive packets that were
the local fwd command is only implemented for TCP
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Scot Loach wrote:
> I'm trying to implement a type of transparent proxy for UDP. My idea was to
> use ipfw to redirect all incoming UDP packets to my server, for example:
>
> ipfw add fwd 127.0.0.1,9000 udp from any to any
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
> the local fwd command is only implemented for TCP
>
(patches accepted :-)
>
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Scot Loach wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to implement a type of transparent proxy for UDP. My idea was to
> > use ipfw to redirect all incoming UDP pac
[Bcc to -net because it is relevant there. This email has been
triggered by a private discussion i was having with other committers
(who will easily recognise themselves :) which suggested the
possibility of adding more fields to mbuf headers]
Just recently came up to my attention that we have the
If one was successful to run this beast, could you share
with us your configs?
Thanks
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
÷ Thu, 21.11.2002, × 03:30, Archie Cobbs ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> Vladimir B. Grebenschikov wrote:
> > can anyone help me setup mpd pptp link (as client)
> > to Linux pptp server ?
>
> The mpd log shows that you are requiring the peer to authenticate
> but the peer doesn't want to. That's why LCP is failing to
Vladimir B. Grebenschikov wrote:
> Session established, but then I am trying to ping other end I get:
>
> [pptp] LCP: rec'd Protocol Reject #2 link 0 (Opened)
> [pptp] LCP: protocol 0x2145 was rejected
> [pptp] LCP: rec'd Protocol Reject #3 link 0 (Opened)
> [pptp] LCP: protocol 0x2145 was reject
Archie Cobbs wrote:
>
> I'm curious what -net's opinion is on PR kern/38544:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/38554
>
> In summary: if you have a connected socket whose local IP address
> is X, and then change the interface IP address from X to Y, then
> packets written ou
As Roman Kurakin wrote:
> Sppp still have a quantity of bugs. Here is one of them:
>
> --- if_spppsubr.c.origWed Oct 16 18:41:16 2002
> +++ if_spppsubr.cThu Nov 21 20:13:16 2002
> @@ -1672,12 +1672,12 @@
> case STATE_ACK_SENT:
> break;
> case STATE_CLOSI
> From: Wes Peters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Archie Cobbs wrote:
> >
> > I'm curious what -net's opinion is on PR kern/38544:
> >
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/38554
> >
> > In summary: if you have a connected socket whose local IP address
> > is X, and then change t
On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 01:16 PM, Wes Peters wrote:
Archie Cobbs wrote:
I'm curious what -net's opinion is on PR kern/38544:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/38554
In summary: if you have a connected socket whose local IP address
is X, and then change the interf
÷ Thu, 21.11.2002, × 23:41, Archie Cobbs ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> Vladimir B. Grebenschikov wrote:
> > Session established, but then I am trying to ping other end I get:
> >
> > [pptp] LCP: rec'd Protocol Reject #2 link 0 (Opened)
> > [pptp] LCP: protocol 0x2145 was rejected
> > [pptp] LCP: rec'd Protocol Reje
Don Bowman wrote:
> > > I'm curious what -net's opinion is on PR kern/38544:
> > >
> > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/38554
> > >
> > > In summary: if you have a connected socket whose local IP address
> > > is X, and then change the interface IP address from X to Y, then
>
> From: Archie Cobbs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: November 21, 2002 16:54
> To: Don Bowman
> Cc: 'Wes Peters'; Archie Cobbs; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sockets and changing IP addresses
>
>
> Don Bowman wrote:
> > > > I'm curious what -net's opinion is on PR kern/38544:
> > > >
> > >
Nothing better when I use ifconfig down/up.
other questions was:
- what is "Slow network response"?
- does ifconfig down/up helps?
tcpdump buffers output so
usful bits are some time after trouble.
In my case slowdown triggered by
arp scans
> My network is composed with Windows 2000 servers an
Justin C. Walker wrote:
> >> Do people agree that my suggestion of returning ENETDOWN is reasonable?
> >
> > Wow. There are other possibilities, EADDRNOTAVAIL or ECONNABORTED.
> > It doesn't matter so long as it the errno is unique to this situation
> > across all syscalls that might encounter it;
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jul
ian Elischer writes:
>the local fwd command is only implemented for TCP
Here is a patch against -stable that I did a while ago, but I never
got around to doing a -current version - the code there is quite
different.
Ian
Index: udp_usrreq.c
> I would recommend a committer look this over and
> commit it. If you wish, I can make the patch *just*
> be the change (changing the 16-bit to 32-bit writes,
> without the VPD stuff), but the other changes seemed
> generally useful.
Please whittle the patch down to just the bug fix; 5.0 is in c
Wes Peters wrote:
> > I'm curious what -net's opinion is on PR kern/38544:
> >
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/38554
> >
> > In summary: if you have a connected socket whose local IP address
> > is X, and then change the interface IP address from X to Y, then
> > packets w
In article <184f01c291c9$147e7100$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sam Leffler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would recommend a committer look this over and
> > commit it. If you wish, I can make the patch *just*
> > be the change (changing the 16-bit to 32-bit writes,
> > without the VPD stuff), but the oth
I want to commit the mbuf packet tag changes to stable. These changes
replace the aux mbuf pointer in the mbuf with a list of "packet tags". This
does not change the size of the mbuf structure but does affect any software
that uses them (presently only KAME ipsec which has been patched to use
pac
> I want to commit the mbuf packet tag changes to stable. These changes
> replace the aux mbuf pointer in the mbuf with a list of "packet tags".
This
> does not change the size of the mbuf structure but does affect any
software
> that uses them (presently only KAME ipsec which has been patched to
> From: Sam Leffler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > I would recommend a committer look this over and
> > commit it. If you wish, I can make the patch *just*
> > be the change (changing the 16-bit to 32-bit writes,
> > without the VPD stuff), but the other changes seemed
> > generally useful.
>
> P
(apologies if you got this more than once, but after 6
hours it hadn't shown up on the mailing list)
There is a bug in the STABLE (and current) if_bge which
causes the driver to loop forever in interrupt context
(in bge_rxeof()). This is caused by the return ring
length being 1024 in the driver, a
I think you want NAT:
man ipnat
man natd
-Matt
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 15:30, Carlos Carnero wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ok, this is another wacky question. I have connected
> two subnetworks to my FreeBSD router to the internet.
> By design they shouln't be able to communicate between
> them--which I have do
Thus spake Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > With about 150M in use and KVA_PAGES undefined in config (default),
> > > both 4.7-STABLE and 5.0-CURRENT panic (1G installed memory).
> >
> > Yes, the default is 256, IIRC. That corresponds to 1 GB of KVA,
> > and you have only 1 GB of physical
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=tcp%20proxy&stype=all
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Carlos Carnero wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ok, this is another wacky question. I have connected
> two subnetworks to my FreeBSD router to the internet.
> By design they shouln't be able to communicate between
> them--which
David Schultz wrote:
Most kernel memory is not pageable, so swap probably won't help
you. Your `kmem_map too small' error message should report to you
the size of the attempted allocation and the size of kmem_map.
If the map really isn't full, I'm not sure why you would get this
panic, unless yo
Been looking at a number of how-to's on the web for connecting Win2k
clients to Freebsd as a VPN.
However, despite carefully following them, I can't get any of them to
work.
Could someone on the list who has managed this, either point me in the
direction of a how-to that works, or share their con
Hi,
> I think you want NAT:
Umm, not really. Following Mr. Hallstrom suggestion I
tried balance and it works beautifully for my needs.
Thanks a lot :)
Carlos.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.
this worked for me the last time I did it.
http://stuff.adhesivemedia.com/freebsd/mpd.php
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Ian Watkinson wrote:
> Been looking at a number of how-to's on the web for connecting Win2k
> clients to Freebsd as a VPN.
>
> However, despite carefully following them, I can't get any
Thus spake Petri Helenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Most kernel memory is not pageable, so swap probably won't help
> >you. Your `kmem_map too small' error message should report to you
> >the size of the attempted allocation and the size of kmem_map.
> >If the map really isn't full, I'm not sure why
Hi,
ok, this is another wacky question. I have connected
two subnetworks to my FreeBSD router to the internet.
By design they shouln't be able to communicate between
them--which I have done with IP Filter.
What I'd like to do now is to make a TCP proxy/relay
on my firewall/router. For instance, o
39 matches
Mail list logo
