On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
GS>On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 03:02:28PM -0800, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
GS>R> Synopsis: [patch] new control message for ng_iface(4) - getifindex
GS>R>
GS>R> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
GS>R> State-Changed-By: ru
GS>R> State-Changed-When: Sun Mar 7 15:01:
Hi,
What happens if we configure an alias on lo0:
ifconfig lo0 alias 192.168.5.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
and then use the same IP on gif0:
ifconfig gif0 create
ifconfig gif0 tunnel x.x.x.x y.y.y.y
ifconfig gif0 192.168.5.1 192.168.5.2 netmask 255.255.255.252
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacob S. Barrett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 5:17 PM
> To: Will Saxon
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Solution for Resilient VLAN Trunk Bonding
>
>
> On Monday 08 March 2004 01:41 pm, Will Saxon wrote:
> >
Hi
I have a problem bothering me for days now. Hope some of you have an
proposal for a solution...
I have some code working over IP4 sending T/TCP transactions. But when
switching to IP6 the sendto() complains over "Socket is not connected".
As i said it currently working witch the usual sin but
On Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 01:55 AM, Frrodo Baggins wrote:
Hi,
What happens if we configure an alias on lo0:
ifconfig lo0 alias 192.168.5.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
and then use the same IP on gif0:
What happens if you have the same address on two different houses on
the same street?
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Brooks Davis wrote:
> I've got a co-worker who is part of a research group at ISI that
> is doing research on long fat pipes with large streams. They are
> intrested in doing a SACK implementation. I hope to have some more
> information later this week.
>
> -- Brooks
In ord
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:54:57PM -0500, Mark Allman wrote:
> On the freebsd web page, there is a note about monetary contributions.
> I wonder if it would be worth it to make this a bit more verbose and
> list specific things that are in need of funding. So, companies can tag
> a small donation
Jeffrey Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What Luigi says is absolutely correct. It doesn't take a lot to
> get this done. I've talked to a number of companies about implementing
> SACK for them and while there was interest, no one wanted to fund
> it all themselves, potentially for the benefit o
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 03:19:58AM -0600, Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Brooks Davis wrote:
>
> > I've got a co-worker who is part of a research group at ISI that
> > is doing research on long fat pipes with large streams. They are
> > intrested in doing a SACK implementation.
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Justin Walker wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 01:55 AM, Frrodo Baggins wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >What happens if we configure an alias on lo0:
> >
> > ifconfig lo0 alias 192.168.5.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
> >
> > and then use the same IP on gif0:
>
>
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 08:53:56AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
R> On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:48:20AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
R> > On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:29:39PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
R> > R> > I have one more idea. Currently we have got 3 interface nodes: ng_ether,
ng_iface,
R> >
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:20:33PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> Imagine the following: you have node, which is connected to some generic
T> interface (it doesn't know which node type exactly). This node wants to
T> determine interface index of attached interfac. It would send 3 "getifindex"
me
Hi All,
I've been playing around with this for a few weeks now and searched Google
endlessly, but still can't find a solution... I apologise in advance for the
length of this post.
Basically, I have a freebsd machine that acts as a proxy and web server to a web
application we are currently devel
> 1. Internal structures are updated to handle SACK, and the stack handles
> the receive side of SACK properly. (The stack advertises itself as SACK
> capable, of course.)
>
> 2. The transmit side of SACK is implemented.
>
> >From what I recall about SACK, the implementation of part 1 would b
At 3:32 PM -0800 2004/03/08, Jeffrey Hsu wrote:
What Luigi says is absolutely correct. It doesn't take a lot to
get this done. I've talked to a number of companies about implementing
SACK for them and while there was interest, no one wanted to fund
it all themselves, potentially for the bene
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:13:11 +0100
> From: Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> At 3:32 PM -0800 2004/03/08, Jeffrey Hsu wrote:
>
> > What Luigi says is absolutely correct. It doesn't take a lot to
> > get this done. I've talked to a number of companies about i
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Selective ACKnowledgment (SACK) allows acknowledgment of received
> packets in a TCP window so that only the missing/damaged packet needs to
> be re-transmitted. This is normally of little value on a LAN where ACKs
> arrive quickly and windows are smalle
Mike Silbersack wrote:
SACK itself really doesn't do much, it's all the new congestion control
schemes (FACK, Rate Halving, etc) that come shipped with most SACK
implementations that do the work and contain most of the complexity.
And all this would be non-issue within normal operational contex
On 09-Mar-2004 Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:13:11 +0100
>> From: Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> At 3:32 PM -0800 2004/03/08, Jeffrey Hsu wrote:
>>
>> > What Luigi says is absolutely correct. It doesn't take a lot to
>> > get this done.
> Hi All,
>
> I've been playing around with this for a few weeks now and searched Google
> endlessly, but still can't find a solution... I apologise in advance for
> the
> length of this post.
>
> Basically, I have a freebsd machine that acts as a proxy and web server to a
> web
> application we
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:34:18PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 00050 151 17284 divert 8668 ip from any to any via fxp1
> 00051 151 17284 divert 8669 ip from any to any via fxp1
Did you actually want to send every packet through both nat daemons?
You might want to use 4 rules to specify se
This is perhaps the wrong forum for this question, however, posting on
-questions has drawn a blank.
I have a newly created VPN between a 4.8 box and a Cisco VPN 3000
Concentrator. The concentrator is not under my control, being owned by an
associated company.
The policies are extremely restrict
Hi,
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:35:11 +0100
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hannes Persson) said:
mda00hpe> I have some code working over IP4 sending T/TCP transactions. But when
mda00hpe> switching to IP6 the sendto() complains over "Socket is not connected".
mda00hpe> As i said it currently working
hi all,
i'm trying to set up a FreeBSD 5.2 with trunking with 11 vlan interfaces
to advertise ipv6 prefixes in an ipv6 native network
my purpose is that vlan interfaces will configure their address from the
prefix advertised on the same machine
i've been following this page to use vlan devices:
Brad Knowles:
> Out of curiosity, can someone provide some pointers as to where SACK
> really helps? Is this just for high-speed WANs and doesn't help on
> LANs, or is it useful in both contexts? Also, at what speeds/packet
> sizes does SACK start to become really useful?
>
> I'm just wondering
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Smørgrav wrote:
> Just for giggles, what kind of money are we talking here? I might be
> able to liberate funds for work that improves network performance in
> the high end.
that'd be cool, and i wish i could as well. with the non-profit status of
the
26 matches
Mail list logo
