Hello
I'm intrested in implementing sendmail with AUTH agains passwd, I have
only been able to do this agains TSL with their database, has anyone
tried agains passwd and got it to work?
/John
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the messa
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:03:58PM -0800, Josh Brooks wrote:
...
> 65123 556880155 55168583654 allow ip from any to any
>
> This shows 55 gigabytes of total transfer for this rule - and i know we
> have transferred about 3 terabytes during that period ...
i am not aware of counter problems. Your
No, it should be catching much more than it shows.
Also many other rules that are quite specific are very very deflated. I
will do some real tests later today with firm numbers.
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:03:58PM -0800, Josh Brooks wrote:
> ...
> > 65
Hello,
I used to have a firewall with ipfw count rules in place for every IP I
had. This worked fine, but it gave me a 2000+ ruleset that would cause
cpu to skyrocket under even the lightest of DoS attacks.
So, I have plugged in another system on the DMZ and plan to count from
there.
In the mo
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, John Angelmo wrote:
> I'm intrested in implementing sendmail with AUTH agains passwd, I have
> only been able to do this agains TSL with their database, has anyone
> tried agains passwd and got it to work?
One approach that has been used with success by many folks, me include
Any ideas if netgraph code is accounted for the "swiN: net" kernel process
or to the interrupt virtual process?
Also ideas what is the usual bottleneck in SMP Xeon system are appreciated,
600Mbps internet traffic seems to generate about 60% (on one of the CPUs) .
This is on -CURRENT.
The numbe
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Robbins wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> > Attic?
>
> Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the attic while
> you ar
Hello,
I'm trying to setup amd on a host which has only localhost and a
dialup network connection.
When amd is started it causes a network connection on the tun0
interface. It seems to connect to ports 1023 and 1022.
Several network servers can be configured to which address they
should bind but I
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:09:13PM -0800, Bill Paul wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > > Yes, it's me. I'm still alive.
> > It's great to hear that one of the most talented FreeBSD hackers is back
> > in business :)
> >
> > Does this means that you can afford some time to investigate the problems
> > rega
Hi,
For anyone who's using MPD with multilink PPP enabled and is experiencing
mysterious "hangs" where no data gets through for an extended period of
time, please try the patch below.
Thanks to Matthew Impett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for finding the bug.
-Archie
_
looks good here..
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For anyone who's using MPD with multilink PPP enabled and is experiencing
> mysterious "hangs" where no data gets through for an extended period of
> time, please try the patch below.
>
> Thanks to Matthew Impett <[EMAIL PROTE
> I used to have a firewall with ipfw count rules in place for every IP I
> had. This worked fine, but it gave me a 2000+ ruleset that would cause
> cpu to skyrocket under even the lightest of DoS attacks.
>
> So, I have plugged in another system on the DMZ and plan to count from
> there.
>
> In
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> I'm trying to deploy a transparent proxy server for a friend's office but have
> run into a couple of snags that I can't seam to find the correct answer for.
a) Draw a diagram,
b) Check IPFW rules (tcpdump is your friend),
c) Check out transproxy...
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, CHOI Junho wrote:
> Final: What is a good math for calculating these values safely?
> kern.ipc.nmbclusters
> kern.ipc.nsfbufs
FWIW, The math you want should be in tuning(7).
-m
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of
> > Any comments on the high cpu consumption of mb_free? Or any other places
> > where I should look to improve performance?
>
> What do you mean "high cpu consumption?" The common case of mb_free()
> is this:
According to profiling mb_free takes 18.9% of all time consumed in kernel and is
al
Julian Elischer (Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800) wrote:
> I thought nwfs used it?
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
> > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> > Attic
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:12:55AM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> > > Any comments on the high cpu consumption of mb_free? Or any other places
> > > where I should look to improve performance?
> >
> > What do you mean "high cpu consumption?" The common case of mb_free()
> > is this:
>
> Acco
Mike Barcroft wrote:
> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tim Robbins wrote:
> > > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> > > Attic?
> >
> > Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/G
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Barcroft wrote:
> > Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Tim Robbins wrote:
> > > > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > > > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> >
Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
Attic?
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Tim Robbins wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> Attic?
Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the attic while
you are at it. It can serve it's purpose from there, too.
Is
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:56:27AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Tim Robbins wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> > Attic?
>
> Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the
Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mistake
as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
but nowadays, in order to get an OS that supports many stacks, we have to use
NetBSD.
BSD4.4 was designed in order to support many stacks, F
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vincent Jardin writes:
>Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mistake
>as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
>but nowadays, in order to get an OS that supports many stacks, we have to use
>Net
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> the Attic?
Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
to find out that it doesn't even compile.
In file included from ../../../netns/idp_usrreq.c:51:
../../../netns/ns_pcb.h:82: warn
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Wemm writes:
>Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>> Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
>> the Attic?
>
>Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
>to find out that it doesn't even compile.
Could we possibly move Terry
"Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vincent Jardin writes:
>
> >Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mista
ke
> >as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
> >but nowadays, in order to get an OS that
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I thought nwfs used it?
nwfs uses netipx. From what I can tell, netipx was based on netns.
Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
What is IPX currently being used for? Legacy systems?
I've been stuck in TCP/IP land for many years now. Have been lucky
enough to not run into any IPX.
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 18:26, Tim Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:53:56PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > I thought nwfs us
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> > the Attic?
>
> Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
> to find out that it doesn't even compile.
[ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
* De: Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> > > the Attic?
> >
> > Terry: will you please ch
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
> guys happy?
Yes, as will anything else that cuts down on the metadiscussions and
increases the quality of the codebase.
mcl
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsu
* De: Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-03-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version ]
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
> > guys happy?
>
> Yes, as will anything else tha
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:35:51PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Things being removed constantly.
>
> If you will remember, there has been a rocky history with the
> removal of functionality in FreeBSD. If you don't remember,
> I will be happy to remind you of specific incidents that ended
> up
I have at least 1 VPN setup that requires full IPX support.
On Tuesday 04 March 2003 15:32, Chris Fowler wrote:
> What is IPX currently being used for? Legacy systems?
>
> I've been stuck in TCP/IP land for many years now. Have been lucky
> enough to not run into any IPX.
>
> On Tue, 2003-03-04
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
> > to find out that it doesn't even compile.
>
> [ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
>
> Tell you what, I'll fix these and post a patch. Will that make you
> guys
Julian Elischer wrote:
> I thought nwfs used it?
Nope. But actually looking at the code would have told you that.
Remember, we're talking about the Xerox networking suite here. It's not
like its a widely deployed protocol or something important.
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
>
Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> I have at least 1 VPN setup that requires full IPX support.
Yep, but keep in mind that netipx is different to netns. netipx actually
works and is actually useful.
> On Tuesday 04 March 2003 15:32, Chris Fowler wrote:
> > What is IPX currently being used for? Legacy sy
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to
> > > the Attic?
> >
> > Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
> > to find out that it doesn't even compile.
>
> [ ... lots of triv
Terry Lambert wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Peter Wemm wrote:
> > > Terry: will you please check your facts? It takes around 30 seconds
> > > to find out that it doesn't even compile.
> >
> > [ ... lots of trivial to fix warnings and errors ... ]
> >
> > Tell you what, I'll fix these and po
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Vincent Jardin wrote:
> Why does it need to be removed ? According to me, it would be the same mistake
> as the removal of netiso and netccitt. I did not know FreeBSD at this time,
> but nowadays, in order to get an OS that supports many stacks, we have to use
> NetBSD.
If ne
I did some profiling on -CURRENT from a few days back, and I think I haven´t
figured the new tunables out or the code is not doing what it´s supposed to
or I´m asking more than it is supposed to do but it seems that mb_free
is being quite wasteful...
Any pointers to how the new high/low watermark
Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 07:56:27AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Is there a compelling reason for doing this, other than "I
> > want to make some API/locking change, but I don't want to
> > have to keep this code working at the same time"? Maximizing
>
> Is there a compelli
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:34:11PM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
>
> I did some profiling on -CURRENT from a few days back, and I think I haven´t
> figured the new tunables out or the code is not doing what it´s supposed to
> or I´m asking more than it is supposed to do but it seems that mb_free
>
>
> Yes, it's normal. The commit log clearly states that the new
> watermarks do nothing for now. I have a patch that changes that but I
> haven't committed it yet because I left for vacation last Sunday and I
> only returned early this Monday. Since then, I've been too busy to
> cle
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:24:27AM +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it's normal. The commit log clearly states that the new
> > watermarks do nothing for now. I have a patch that changes that but I
> > haven't committed it yet because I left for vacation last Sunday and I
> >
I thought nwfs used it?
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> Attic?
>
>
> Tim
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsub
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Tim Robbins wrote:
> Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does
> it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the
> Attic?
netns could be safely moved to Attic. I'm receive enough IPX
related questions, and never got
48 matches
Mail list logo
