On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David J Duchscher wrote:
> >> >I was wondering how people are handling redundant connections? We
> >> >would like to have dual NICs in the FreeBSD box with each NIC
> >> connected
> >> >to a different switch. Both switches are in the same broadcast
> >> domain.
> >> >In point
A fairly recent change in 4.7-STABLE modified the way
IPsec ESP tunneled packets are handled by the ipfw code.
There was a brief thread on this at the freebsd-stable
mailing list in the end of November, see for example
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=270433+0+archive/2002/freebsd-stabl
Hi,
First of all, forgive me if my question is off-topic. I could have
tried -questions but was afraid that is was kind of very specific.
To the point: Two machines running 4.7, A and B, connected to the same
switch. Both running zebra. When A is turned off, B receives A's traffic
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:49:11 -0300
Fernando Schapachnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> First of all, forgive me if my question is off-topic. I could have
> tried -questions but was afraid that is was kind of very specific.
>
> To the point: Two machines running 4.7, A and B, connec
÷ Thu, 02.01.2003, × 17:49, Fernando Schapachnik ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
> Hi,
> First of all, forgive me if my question is off-topic. I could have
> tried -questions but was afraid that is was kind of very specific.
>
> To the point: Two machines running 4.7, A and B, connected to the same
> switch.
Hello,
In the ipfw man page, we can read:
"To ease configuration, rules can be put into a file which is processed
using ipfw as shown in the first synopsis line."
Shouldn't be the 'last synopsis line' ?
Thanks.
oc
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freeb
> From: Jonathan Disher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, David J Duchscher wrote:
>
> > >> >I was wondering how people are handling redundant
> connections? We
> > >> >would like to have dual NICs in the FreeBSD box with each NIC
> > >> connected
> > >> >to a different switch. B
> "Emss" == Eric Masson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Emss> Followup to myself, sorry
Once more,
Braino on my side, ipnat configuration file hasn't been updated to the
new interface, sorry for the noise.
Eric Masson
PS: mpd works damn fine here, thanks to Archie & Julian
--
Lu sur linux.
En un mensaje anterior, Vladimir B. Grebenschikov escribió:
> There was bug in zebra, it allows promosq. mode on interface
> so host begin catch all traffic as its own.
> (You can check this by ifconfig)
>
>
> This was fixed 2002/10/07.
Thanks!
I've just posted saying it was not in promiscuou
En un mensaje anterior, éé Yann GROSSEL ééé escribió:
> Have you checked that the ethernet interface of your B machine is not
> in promiscuous mode for an unknown reason ?
No, B doesn't go into promiscuous mode, at least from what ifconfig and
messages tell.
>
>
> We have several FreeBSD 4.7 bo
> "Pekka" == Pekka Nikander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pekka> Now, as a small step to that direction I made the following
Pekka> small hack to netinet6/esp_input.c It changes the ESP tunneled
Pekka> packets to look like they were coming from the loopback
Pekka> interface. And it works lik
[Sorry to reply to the wrong message, but I missed this earlier.]
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 09:22:26PM +0100, Eric Masson wrote:
> > "Pekka" == Pekka Nikander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Pekka> Now, as a small step to that direction I made the following
> Pekka> small hack to netinet6/esp
Thanks for the info. Could you explain how mbuf clusters and mbufs are
related? i'd like to better understand how we can run out of one and
not the other. also, is there an upper value for mbuf clusters that we
should be wary of? again, the tuning page is quite vague on this.
64000 seems to
Anyone using one of these?
http://www.corpsys.com/store/prodinfo.asp?number=ANA6944&variation=&aitem=60&mitem=62
If so, is the performance good?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Just a quick question.. Where do we stand on bringing the networking
subsystem out from under Giant?
The mbuf system is soon to be safe, thanks to Alan Cox, so this allows
INTR_MPSAFE drivers. However, swi:net is still under Giant, as are
many of the important socket functions (sendto(), recvfr
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>
> Just a quick question.. Where do we stand on bringing the networking
> subsystem out from under Giant?
>
> The mbuf system is soon to be safe, thanks to Alan Cox, so this allows
> INTR_MPSAFE drivers. However, swi:net is still under Giant, as ar
Mbufs are data structures in the kernel. They contain information relating
to data to be sent/received. Mbufs on my stable system are 256 bytes and
mbuf clusters are 2048 bytes. I believe that there are 4 different types of
mbufs and they are usually chained together, depending on the amount of
17 matches
Mail list logo
