On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 06:51:32PM +0100, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Any ideas?
RFC1323 support includes TCP window scaling (wscale), which affects pf
stateful filtering. There have been bugs with that in the past, but the
code in 6.x should contain all fixes for them. Maybe you found a new
one.
When
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:45:51AM +0100, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
> To rule this out, make sure you either don't create state at all, or
> create state on the first SYN when you do (look for any "pass" rules
> which don't also include "keep state"). pfctl -vss prints the wscale
> factors being hon
I have confirmed that there is no problem with settings of Dummynet.
When Host-A/B uses Linux, the throughput of RTT=20ms (using Iperf) is
same as that of RTT=0ms.
Host-A/B use FreeBSD v6.0 release. Does anyone have
experience/suggestion for achieving high throughput with FreeBSD?
Michael Vince w
Hi,
I hope you give me some advice or explaination about Dummynet.
I've googling/experiment for three a month to get the right answer how
to use WF2Q+ with Dummynet. I've a small internet cafe and after 4
years using FreeBSD+Dummynet with hardlink limiting policy. Here for
WF2Q+ implementation
in
Hello,
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006, at 01:39, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following some short discussion on freebsd-pf I've written (mostly
> copied, but let's skip that for a moment) short patch for ip_input.c,
> that does uRPF check for incoming packets.
>
> In some simple words, it's exac
Hi!
What is there to gain in performance choosing AMD64 on a Dell PE1850
(Xeon EMT64) when used as router?
/Jon
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL
Yann Berthier wrote:
>If this yet to be found wiser guy would not forget the loose check
>too (verrevpath in ipfw speaking), where packets matching the default
>route are ok ... :)
Actually it does that and will until we'll have option to have two
or more default routes.
Presently, i
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006, at 14:58, ?ukasz Bromirski wrote:
> Yann Berthier wrote:
>
> >If this yet to be found wiser guy would not forget the loose check
> >too (verrevpath in ipfw speaking), where packets matching the default
> >route are ok ... :)
>
> Actually it does that and will unt
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 02:52:14AM +, Paul wrote:
> I've just installed FreeBSD 6.0 Release yesterday, I've spend the last
> two days trying to resolve a networking problem, the problem is this:
> when I try and connect to a domain or an IP for that matter, it takes
> several minutes for it to
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 12:39:26PM +1030, Aluminium Oxide wrote:
> Below is the output of `diff res_debug.org.c res_debug.c`
>
> I've also attached this.
> =
> 574,575c574,575
> < precsize_aton(strptr)
> < char **strptr;
> ---
> > precsize_
> probably not too much.. :-)
>
> has anyome actually looked at it? :-)
>
>
> I can't get to Archie's doc on Daemonnews at the moment so here's my
> copy:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~julian/netgraph.html
Great, Thanks!
I did read this paper a while back (actualy, this what turned me on
Łukasz Bromirski wrote:
Yann Berthier wrote:
If this yet to be found wiser guy would not forget the loose check
too (verrevpath in ipfw speaking), where packets matching the default
route are ok ... :)
Actually it does that and will until we'll have option to have two
or more d
Squigly wrote:
probably not too much.. :-)
has anyome actually looked at it? :-)
I can't get to Archie's doc on Daemonnews at the moment so here's my
copy:
http://people.freebsd.org/~julian/netgraph.html
Great, Thanks!
I did read this paper a while back (actualy, this what turne
Zongsheng Zhang wrote:
I have confirmed that there is no problem with settings of Dummynet.
When Host-A/B uses Linux, the throughput of RTT=20ms (using Iperf) is
same as that of RTT=0ms.
Host-A/B use FreeBSD v6.0 release. Does anyone have
experience/suggestion for achieving high throughput with
Julian Elischer wrote:
> Several routes with the same dest would be interesting but how do you
> select between them?
Via some sort of load-balancing or policy routing mechanism on
network stack level? There is so much we miss in current FreeBSD stack
in this area it's hard to say some single fea
Client Load Balancing: LSNAT-router using IPFW and NATD on FreeBSD 6.0
The Internet gateways must reside in different logical networks for this
configuration to work.
1. Compile Custom Kernel
options IPFIREWALL
options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD
options IPDIVERT
options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD_EXTENDED
2.
Some of our regression tests fail randomly on FreeBSD with an unexpected
EADDRINUSE error. We didn't see this problem with 4.7, but we see it in
4.11, 5.4, and 6.0. We don't see this behavior on any of our other
supported platforms.
We investigated the problem, and managed to come up with a
Sorry my attachments didn't make it :)
#
# sink.py
#
import socket
import traceback
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM, 0)
s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
s.bind(('127.0.0.1', 12345))
s.listen(5)
while True:
try:
n = s.accept()[0]
d = N
I'd like to do something like described on the LVS pages
http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/VS-DRouting.html, that
is route requests to another server and answer from this
second server directly to the client. How can I do it on
FreeBSD?
--
Thanks,
Karel Miklav
___
Karel Miklav wrote:
> I'd like to do something like described on the LVS pages
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/VS-DRouting.html, that is route
> requests to another server and answer from this second server
> directly to the client. How can I do it on FreeBSD?
You can use lsnat.
http://www.e
20 matches
Mail list logo
