Fabian Keil wrote:
> The example section has the following sentence "Such a con-
> figuration could be used to implement a simple 802.11-to-Ethernet bridge
> (assuming the 802.11 interface is in ad-hoc mode)."
>
> I don't get the meaning of the ad-hoc mode part. In my tests if_bridge
> worked in
Sten Daniel Sørsdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fabian Keil wrote:
>
> > The example section has the following sentence "Such a con-
> > figuration could be used to implement a simple 802.11-to-Ethernet bridge
> > (assuming the 802.11 interface is in ad-hoc mode)."
> >
> > I don't get the meani
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 04:41:42PM +0200, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Sten Daniel Sørsdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Fabian Keil wrote:
> >
> > > The example section has the following sentence "Such a con-
> > > figuration could be used to implement a simple 802.11-to-Ethernet bridge
> > > (assumi
Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 04:41:42PM +0200, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > I tried if_bridge to let QEMU on my laptop talk to the wireless
> > network. It worked if the Laptop's NIC was in ad-hoc or hostap mode,
> > but failed if the NIC was connected to an access
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 06:34:12AM -0700, Yeow C.H. wrote:
> Thanks Brian.
>
> Simply put Bit-Twist is smaller, do more, medium specific (Ethernet
> II - IEEE 802.3) suite.
>
> Bittwist (packet generator) does not differs much from tcpreplay
> program. I would admit if you say tcprepl
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 04:44:38PM -1000, Dave Cornejo wrote:
> So the question is whether these cards, regardless of their affect on
> throughput, increase usable CPU cycles? I have several Soekris 1401
> cards and am wondering if there would be any point to putting them
> into some machines that
est version:
http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/new_iwi/20060418.both_nofw.tgz
Thanks to Sam, this should work in IBSS (adhoc) mode now.
> It seems working fine, again. Thank you!
> I forgot to mention one problem which I didn't see with stock iwi
> driver on RELENG_6:
>
>
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:44:38 -1000 (HST), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net
you wrote:
>I've read here before (or maybe some other freebsd list) that cards
>like the Soekris 1401 don't gain as much as you'd expect due to moving
>packets to/from the card over the PCI bus. But the context is usually
>one
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 04:44:38PM -1000, Dave Cornejo wrote:
> > So the question is whether these cards, regardless of their affect on
> > throughput, increase usable CPU cycles? I have several Soekris 1401
> > cards and am wondering if there would be any point to putting them
> > into some mac
Mike Tancsa wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:44:38 -1000 (HST), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net
you wrote:
I've read here before (or maybe some other freebsd list) that cards
like the Soekris 1401 don't gain as much as you'd expect due to moving
packets to/from the card over the PCI bus. But the cont
Hi all,
I checked at 7.0-CURRENT release notes, that gre(4) is support IPv6
encapsulation. Could you tell me how I can tunnel IPv6 through gre(4)
? Is anybody ever configure this new thing ?
Referring to man 4 gre :
(1)route add default B
(2)ifconfig greN create
(3)ifconf
11 matches
Mail list logo