___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> > Having the possibility to test and set the 802.1p or TOS values
> > separately would avoid making a "trust"/"override" subtlety and will
> > obviously make it more flexible.
>
> I agree on this point. The one thing to be careful of is that 802.1p
> priorities and TOS values work rather differ
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:22:19PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > > Having the possibility to test and set the 802.1p or TOS values
> > > separately would avoid making a "trust"/"override" subtlety and will
> > > obviously make it more flexible.
> >
> > I agree on this point. The one thing to b
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 11:05:19AM +0500, Boris Kovalenko wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> >I'm not sure why you need trust and override. It seems like you only
> >need the ability to set or remove values as well as acting on already
> >attached tags (which we're going to need to carry around as m_tags so
Here I am again, experimenting with FreeBSD on the network.
My last questions here helped me get a firewall to help our network.
Now, I have a test setup in a virtual environment… but I have a problem.
(why else would I be writing here then?). At the moment I have no clue what
to even look up on
I apologize for hitting the send button too quickly.
Once all noted down, it clicked in my mind that virtual pc mustn't be
respecting the PROMISCUOUS mode of the virtual network card. Once I had a
question in mind, a google search answered that yes, that is a limitation of
virtual PC. So, *sigh* t
Brooks Davis wrote:
Hello!
I still don't see how this usefull differs from taking action or not
taking action.
Just more simple to understand (trusted or not trusted vlan (IMHO)), but
taking action via IPFW of course will be more flexible.
What Cisco does is of rather limited relevence IMO. The
