Current problem reports assigned to you

Current FreeBSD problem reports Critical problems Serious problems S Submitted Tracker Resp. Description --- o [2006/01/30] kern/92552 net A serious bug in most network drivers fro f [2006/02/12] kern

IPSEC Interop problem with Cisco using multiple SA's

I am having a problem establishing peering between my FreeBSD 6.0 gateway and a Cisco device, using IPSEC. The peering works fine if there is only one subnet behind the remote gateway, but it fails when there is more than one subnet. I believe the FreeBSD side is failing to be as strict with the

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

Interesting. I'll try to take a look when I have some free time and then post some comments. Thanks. John-Mark Gurney wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote this message on Wed, May 03, 2006 at 22:40 -0300: Anyway, I am very curious about the result of test 2. Why do the pipes have influence on sys

Re: Packet loss with traffic shaper and routing

I guess traffic stops if you have pipe rules. In test 1, I did: ${fwcmd} pipe 1 config bw 512Kbit/s ${fwcmd} pipe 2 config bw 512Kbit/s ${fwcmd} add _allow_ all from any to any MAC any 00:11:22:33:44:55 in ${fwcmd} add _allow_ all from any to any MAC 00:11:22:33:44:55 any out x 1600 times. That

Re: IPSEC Interop problem with Cisco using multiple SA's

I haven't tried this myself, but you may want to try using "unique:" instead of "require" as the policy level, with set to a unique policy identifier, which is an integer you can pick between 1 and 32767 inclusive, for each security policy. This makes the security policy "claim" the security a

Re: IPSEC Interop problem with Cisco using multiple SA's

Eugene M. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I haven't tried this myself, but you may want to try using > "unique:" instead of "require" as the policy level After reading up on this behavior, I gave it a try, replacing all "require" policies with "unique". I found that there was no need to set a

vrf support in FreeBSD

Hi Folks, I am curious to know if there is any plans to support multiple routing tables in FreeBSD's official release? There was some discussion on this topic last year, if there is any vrf patch for a latest release of FreeBSD, I would love to give it a try. Any help greatly appreciated. Than

Re: vrf support in FreeBSD

Pramod Srinivasan wrote: Hi Folks, I am curious to know if there is any plans to support multiple routing tables in FreeBSD's official release? There was some discussion on this topic last year, if there is any vrf patch for a latest release of FreeBSD, I would love to give it a try. I

Re: vrf support in FreeBSD

JE> Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 21:54:18 -0700 JE> From: Julian Elischer JE> how do you want to select which table should be used? Ingress interface. Consider: 802.3ad, ECMP, FIB, multi RIBs (e.g., OSPF vs BGP weight), VRF I started working on all of the above late in 2003 on 4.x; the project was sh

Re: vrf support in FreeBSD

On Tuesday 09 May 2006 06:54, Julian Elischer wrote: > Pramod Srinivasan wrote: > >Hi Folks, > > > >I am curious to know if there is any plans to support multiple routing > >tables in FreeBSD's official release? > > > >There was some discussion on this topic last year, if there is any vrf > >patch