Hello,
I'm having a network-problem I cannot solve myself and am hoping you
could point me in the right direction.
I'm currently hosting a lot of computers, all in the same subnet. Since
there are administrative servers, hosting-servers, ans so on, I want to
limit access from one logical group
Mark Daniel Reidel wrote:
ifconfig fxp0 up
Just if someone is interested: The problem was this line. After changing
it to:
ifconfig fxp0 link0 up
everything worked fine.
Thanks, Kevin, for pointing this out :o)
- Mark
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing l
> And then: nothing happens. It simply doesn't work. Using tcpdump shows
> me that there are ARP-packets trying to be sent and the bridge seems to
> be forwarding those, but I never get an answer-packet. There was no
> packet-filter active at this moment, so I assume there is a problem with
> b
Hi,
I have rebuilt the sys-altq patches against the sources of FreeBSD
4.9-RC as of 9th October. As the RELENG_4 branch has entered the 4.9
pre-release stage, I assume that no critical changes will occur until
official release time which would broke this patchset.
You can download the patchse
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 01:10:56PM +0200, Mark Daniel Reidel wrote:
> Mark Daniel Reidel wrote:
>
> >ifconfig fxp0 up
>
> Just if someone is interested: The problem was this line. After changing
> it to:
>
> ifconfig fxp0 link0 up
>
> everything worked fine.
Bizarre. Why would uploading the i
hi all,
this is about the thread regarding the use of a
freebsd bridge and tap(4) to change the contents
of the frames.
the solution proposed in the list was to use:
net.link.ether.bridge_cfg=fxp0:0,tap0:0,tap1:1,fxp1:1
then you'd write and application to bridge between
clusters 0 and 1.
i ha
Hi,
Thanks for reading.
I'm running FreeBSD 4.x.
Basically, the problem i'm having - is that when I boot my Laptop - with the
Netgear HA501 wireless card, all traffic on my FreeBSD box - which acts as
the Gateway "stops". If I'm on IRC I ping timeout, browsing the net becomes
impossible, etc.
this is a really complicatged way of doing this..
why not just use divert sockets, like natd?
or, altenatively, if you must do it at link layer,
use netgraph to directly deliver the packets to your daemon..
as to packet delay, if the daemon has a high priority
then, no, it shouldn't slow it down
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Fernando A. Paulo wrote:
> this is about the thread regarding the use of a freebsd bridge and
> tap(4) to change the contents of the frames.
>
> the solution proposed in the list was to use:
>
> net.link.ether.bridge_cfg=fxp0:0,tap0:0,tap1:1,fxp1:1
>
> then you'd write a
Here's an interesting problem that I'm not sure how to solve. A user,
whose machine runs Windows, connects to his ISP via PPTP (he can also use
PPPoE, but there's no change in what happens). Once on the Internet, he
wants to use the Cisco VPN client software to tunnel into a LAN at the office.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:18:24PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> My conclusion from my BPF bridge experience was that prototyping in
> userspace made it a lot easier to experiment with changes, and
> dramatically reduced the development time. On the other hand, it did
> terrible things to perfo
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Barney Wolff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:18:24PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote:
> >
> > My conclusion from my BPF bridge experience was that prototyping in
> > userspace made it a lot easier to experiment with changes, and
> > dramatically reduced the development time.
That's rude, Bill.
It is, indeed, relevant. The PPTP/PPPoE server through
which the client is connecting is running FreeBSD.
--Brett Glass
At 05:16 PM 10/16/2003, Bill Fumerola wrote:
>[ moved off of -net ]
>
>On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:13:19PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
>> [...]
>
>i ran your
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
> That's rude, Bill.
>
> It is, indeed, relevant. The PPTP/PPPoE server through
> which the client is connecting is running FreeBSD.
A fact that you completely failed to mention..
>
> --Brett Glass
>
> At 05:16 PM 10/16/2003, Bill Fumerola wrote:
>
In any event, if I can't get the client to connect, guess
which piece of equipment goes bye-bye? (Hint: It won't
be the Cisco.)
--Brett
At 08:21 PM 10/16/2003, Julian Elischer wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
>
>> That's rude, Bill.
>>
>> It is, indeed, relevant. The PPTP/PPPoE
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Brett Glass wrote:
> Trouble is, as soon as the Cisco VPN client fires up on his Windows
> machine, it blocks the PPTP or PPPoE connection. In short, it strangles
> itself by cutting off the link over which it must connect. With the
> machine no longer able to reach the In
16 matches
Mail list logo
