Suggestions what would it take to make libpcap included in the FreeBSD
distribution
stop tweaking BPF buffer size by default?
tcpdump.org people have been nonresponsive about changing it there, so I
would suggest
it should be patched in FreeBSD to allow applications to control buffer
size.
Pe
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:25:42PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
>
> Suggestions what would it take to make libpcap included in the FreeBSD
> distribution
> stop tweaking BPF buffer size by default?
>
> tcpdump.org people have been nonresponsive about changing it there, so I
> would suggest
> it
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Suggestions what would it take to make libpcap included in the FreeBSD
> distribution stop tweaking BPF buffer size by default?
I use "sysctl debug.dbf_bufsize=131072" on my appliances to increase the
BPF buffer size to something more reasonable witho
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:25:42PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
Suggestions what would it take to make libpcap included in the FreeBSD
distribution
stop tweaking BPF buffer size by default?
tcpdump.org people have been nonresponsive about changing it there, so I
Guy Helmer wrote:
I use "sysctl debug.dbf_bufsize=131072" on my appliances to increase the
BPF buffer size to something more reasonable without having to directly
modify libpcap.
Hope you're not disappointed to find out that modifying that parameter has
no effect when using applications
Petri Helenius wrote:
> Guy Helmer wrote:
> >I use "sysctl debug.dbf_bufsize=131072" on my appliances to increase the
> >BPF buffer size to something more reasonable without having to directly
> >modify libpcap.
> >
> Hope you're not disappointed to find out that modifying that parameter has
> no
Hi,
I wonder if I can put stuff in rc.conf to add static
routes when my machine boots. Is that possible? I
mean, currently I'm adding those routes in rc.local,
but I'd really like to see them in rc.conf.
Best regards,
Carlos.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yaho
Oh,
please disregard. man rc.conf is my friend.
Thanks,
Carlos.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the
I have a long running IPv6 daemon that uses both tcp and udp. It accepts
requests on a tcp socket, and then performs an action on a udp socket
using the same local address that the tcp request came in on. (I am
calling bind on the udp socket to allocate a port number to return to
the client over th
Is there any particular reason that the raw socket implementation in
net/raw_usrreq.c does not require splnet() protection? It seems as though
adding splnet()/splx() calls to the various raw_* routines would greatly
reduce the size of net/rtsock.c, in which many of the routines simply wrap
thei
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Kelly Yancey wrote:
>
> Is there any particular reason that the raw socket implementation in
> net/raw_usrreq.c does not require splnet() protection? It seems as though
> adding splnet()/splx() calls to the various raw_* routines would greatly
> reduce the size of net/rtsoc
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Kelly Yancey wrote:
> Actually, as a follow-up to my own question, I don't see how the
> splnet()/splx() calls in rtsock.c are necessary at all as all of the pru_*
> hooks are called at splnet(). Being that rtsock's pru_* hooks are called at
> splnet(), is there any reason
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:27:25 -0700,
> "Jeff W. Boote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Questions:
> 1. The comment says broken. Anyone know why the comment says that? (The
> IPv4 version of bind says the same thing...)
I don't know...perhaps this comment was copied from the IPv4 code.
> 2.
13 matches
Mail list logo
