Hi,
while porting OpenBSD 3.9 (soon to be released) pf I stumbled on interface
groups. This is a mechanism to group arbitrary interfaces into logical
groups. It is just naming (not functional change), but it helps to convey
semantic information (e.g. group "LAN", "DMZ" ...) about your interfa
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:31:22AM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while porting OpenBSD 3.9 (soon to be released) pf I stumbled on interface
> groups. This is a mechanism to group arbitrary interfaces into logical
> groups. It is just naming (not functional change), but it helps to convey
Does anyone have chip documentation on the broadcom BGE chips? I'm having an
ongoing issue with IPMI that I'd really like to get resolved. The issue seems
to be that during the driver start sequence, a flag is getting set in the chip
that's disabling the IPMI passthrough that I need in order for
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:24:06AM -0600, Stephen P. Cravey wrote:
> Does anyone have chip documentation on the broadcom BGE chips? I'm having an
> ongoing issue with IPMI that I'd really like to get resolved. The issue seems
> to be that during the driver start sequence, a flag is getting set in
Oleg Bulyzhin writes:
| On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:24:06AM -0600, Stephen P. Cravey wrote:
| > Does anyone have chip documentation on the broadcom BGE chips? I'm
having an ongoing issue with IPMI that I'd really like to get resolved. The
issue seems to be that during the driver start sequence, a
Following an unrelated discussion about "interface grouping" in OpenBSD,
I'd like to know if there are any known or planned implementations of LACP
(802.3ad)
interface teaming in FreeBSD?
FreeBSD currently has etherchannel support, but to my knowledge that will only
work for a link to a single swi
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:38:42PM -0800, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
> Oleg Bulyzhin writes:
> | On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 11:24:06AM -0600, Stephen P. Cravey wrote:
> | > Does anyone have chip documentation on the broadcom BGE chips? I'm
> having an ongoing issue with IPMI that I'd really like to get res
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 02:51:48PM -0600, Stephen P. Cravey wrote:
> I don't see the patch either. Does it require pxe booting like Dougs? I
> actually have pulled a system out of service specifically to use for testing
> BGE patches, so it's fairly easy for me to test new versions. I eagerly awa
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:38:42PM -0800, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
> I don't see it attached. I'd like to see your changes and I'd like know
> of your plans about getting it in.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Doug A.
I didnt test it under load yet (server i've used moved to production so
i have limited testing c
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:56:24PM +, Baldur Gislason wrote:
> Following an unrelated discussion about "interface grouping" in OpenBSD,
> I'd like to know if there are any known or planned implementations of LACP
> (802.3ad)
> interface teaming in FreeBSD?
> FreeBSD currently has etherchannel
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:56:24PM +, Baldur Gislason wrote:
> Following an unrelated discussion about "interface grouping" in OpenBSD,
> I'd like to know if there are any known or planned implementations of LACP
> (802.3ad)
> interface teaming in FreeBSD?
> FreeBSD currently has etherchannel
Oleg Bulyzhin writes:
| On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:38:42PM -0800, Doug Ambrisko wrote:
|
| > I don't see it attached. I'd like to see your changes and I'd like know
| > of your plans about getting it in.
|
| I didnt test it under load yet (server i've used moved to production so
| i have limited
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 04:59:11PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:56:24PM +, Baldur Gislason wrote:
> > Following an unrelated discussion about "interface grouping" in OpenBSD,
> > I'd like to know if there are any known or planned implementations of LACP
> > (802.3ad)
> > int
Richard A Steenbergen wrote this message on Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 19:20 -0500:
> and pissing off tcp royally. I believe FreeBSD has a netgraph
> implementation of this, though I've personally never used it.
ng_fec(4)
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
The patch applied cleanly and compiled without visible issues. The
kernel seems to be happy and IPMI is now functioning happily while the
interface is in use. I there are any particular methods of testing you
would otherwise like me to perform, I'll be happy to do so.
I'll beat on it with cvsup an
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 07:20:15PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 04:59:11PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:56:24PM +, Baldur Gislason wrote:
> > > Following an unrelated discussion about "interface grouping" in OpenBSD,
> > > I'd like to know i
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:03:43PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 07:20:15PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 04:59:11PM -0500, Brad wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 08:56:24PM +, Baldur Gislason wrote:
> > > > Following an unrelated discussion a
Hello,
I am setting up FreeBSD6 on my thinkpad, and I am trying to find an easy
way to connect to an available network. I was hoping there was a Gnome
applet or anything in X11 that would allow this, but I have found that
there is not.
Note that I have been able to connect to an access point using
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 10:56:46PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > He was not asking for ECMP. He clearly asked for a failover mechanism
> > for two switches within the SAME Layer *2* domain.
>
> Hrm ok I misread the original post, but I'm still not exactly sure what
> the original poster
B> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:45:58 -0500
B> From: Brad
B> Yes, 2 redundant paths represented by a virtual L2 interface is what he is
B> asking for. VRRP is for providing L3 redundancy for the next hop. A
completely
B> different scenario.
I hesitate to speak for others, but I'm pretty confident R
20 matches
Mail list logo
