Unique IPsec security policies

Hi, Is there a reason why the policies that are defined as unique can't be updated through the pfkey interface? What I'm trying to do is that: 1. I create SP entry and let the kernel assign a request id for policy (reqid in the add is 0). This policy is a tunnel mode policy and I don't have the

Re: Unique IPsec security policies

On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:50:24AM +0300, Jan Mikael Melen wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a reason why the policies that are defined as unique can't be > updated > through the pfkey interface? > > What I'm trying to do is that: > 1. I create SP entry and let the kernel assign a request id for policy

ngctl: send msg: No buffer space available

Hi all, I've run into the above problem with Netgraph on a FreeBSD 4.11 system. I know there are sysctl's (net.graph.recvspace and net.graph.maxdgram) you can set in 5.x but how can I get around this problem on a 4.x machine where these sysctl variables dont exist? Regards, /Ragnar _

Re: ngctl: send msg: No buffer space available

On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:52:49AM +0200, Ragnar Lonn wrote: > Hi all, > > I've run into the above problem with Netgraph on a FreeBSD 4.11 system. > I know there > are sysctl's (net.graph.recvspace and net.graph.maxdgram) you can set in > 5.x but how > can I get around this problem on a 4.x mach

Re: ngctl: send msg: No buffer space available

Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:52:49AM +0200, Ragnar Lonn wrote: Hi all, I've run into the above problem with Netgraph on a FreeBSD 4.11 system. I know there are sysctl's (net.graph.recvspace and net.graph.maxdgram) you can set in 5.x but how can I get around this proble

Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100 Doug Rabson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC > standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone > else has an objection. I disagree. Because fwip and fwe can exist together

Re: fwe -> fwip in GENERIC?

On 18 Oct 2005, at 13:21, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:18 +0100 Doug Rabson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The fwip implementation should be fully compatible with the RFC standard. I'm happy for fwip to replace fwe in GENERIC unless anyone else has an objection. I d

Re: Unique IPsec security policies

Hi, On Tuesday 18 October 2005 11:22, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:50:24AM +0300, Jan Mikael Melen wrote: > > What I'm trying to do is that: > > 1. I create SP entry and let the kernel assign a request id for policy > > (reqid in the add is 0). This policy is a tunnel mode

Bind 8

Hi All, I do not know if this is the correct forum for this questions, if not please point me in the right direction. My secondary DNS server all of a sudden started to chop up about 100% of my server's cpu, I'm running a FreeBSD 5.1-RELEASE server with Bind 8. It was doning fine until I notic

Re: For advice in tcp implementation

Hello, At first thanks for responding to my mail. Now i can estimate the minimal implementation of tcp/ip stack for microcontrollers. I think uip is a good example of such an implementation. Is there any such suite like uip for i386 platform? Is there any minim