On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:01:49 -0800, Jeffrey Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ooops, I still got the same problem.
> > My mistake, I saw "victory" too early.
>
> Have you tried this on DragonFlyBSD? It's a fork of FreeBSD, so
> it should be very familiar to FreeBSD users, except faster and
> m
Dear networkers,
I've noticed a small oddity in in_pcbconnect_setup(). According to SuS, in
case of connection-less socket layer, e.g. SOCK_DGRAM, the connect() syscall
should only choose local address and that's all. To server this purposes a
route lookup is done in in_pcbconnect_setup(). How
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Andrew Heyn wrote:
> Here's an on/off topic question i've been wondering about forever...
>
> I always see people replace their IPs with fake replacements. Is this
> paranoia really warranted? Why not disconnect the cat5 if you want to
> do this?
>
> Or am I not seeing t
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Juan Rodriguez wrote:
> I've cvsup'ed the kernel sources a few hours ago (RELENG_5), and I've
> recompiled.
>
> Now I cannot boot, it gives me "kernel panic" when booting on
> "rlphy0"this is really very annoying. I'm at work now, I cannot give
> you more details...it t
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Juan Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:01:49 -0800, Jeffrey Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ooops, I still got the same problem.
> My mistake, I saw "victory" too early.
Have you tried this on DragonFlyBSD? It's a fork of FreeBSD, so
it should be very familiar to FreeBS
It seems that this can be implemented through ng_one2many netgraph node.
I'm looking for some documentation about this. Well... Given that my
own server is already online and it is several kilometers away from me,
I'd rather test the feature at lab and then go there for a shoot.
å 2005-02-01äç 1
Hi folks,
Advice needed with nslookup &/or NXDOMAIN please:
I don't know if I've config'd something wrong or maybe found a bug ?
I have 3 servers all running the same named config files,
but with different FreeBSD uname -r versions:
194.221.32.28 flat.berklix.org5.3-rel
1
Henry Su wrote:
You can configure both NIC as /32. You also need proxy arp installed and
listen on both NIC. Then the traffic should be able to follow between two
NICs. Since Proxy ARP always answers its MAC to clients, so the clients can
always send traffic to em1 or em0. Based on client's mac ent
Robert,
The code in rev 7.1 (4.3BSD) was:
if (so->so_q == 0) {
so->so_q = so;
so->so_q0 = so;
so->so_options |= SO_ACCEPTCONN;
}
which looks like it's initializing q0 and q to be circular queues,
which has to only happen once, an
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Bill Fenner wrote:
> which looks like it's initializing q0 and q to be circular queues, which
> has to only happen once, and also setting SO_ACCEPTCONN; since nothing
> ever turns off SO_ACCEPTCONN, this is not something that has to happen
> only once. When the stuff that had
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Jon Noack wrote:
> Henry Su wrote:
> > You can configure both NIC as /32. You also need proxy arp installed and
> > listen on both NIC. Then the traffic should be able to follow between two
> > NICs. Since Proxy ARP always answers its MAC to clients, so the clients can
> > al
Hi!!
I have problem for which I'm sure there is
a simple and PROPER solution -- please help!
The problem is, I have set up my Apache server,
but have only my machine for testing. Although
I'm online, requests from my browser typically
end up "redirected" through 127.0.0.1 (lo0).
This is inconven
12 matches
Mail list logo
