On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
Please trim quotes.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:04:26PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> To max out the link without unmaxing CPU for other uses, you do have
> to know when the tx approaches running out of packets. This is best
> done using watermark stu
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:11:18PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
>
> Please trim quotes.
>
> >On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:04:26PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> >> To max out the link without unmaxing CPU for other uses, you do have
> >> to know whe
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 05:11:18PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Pyun YongHyeon wrote:
> My sk_start() tries to fill the tx ring (to length 512) and then put
> an interrupt mark only on the last fragment in a packet nearest to 32
>
Hey All,
When installing the ipsec-tools it says if you want NAT-T you need to
install this patch, http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net/freebsd6-natt.diff
Can any one tell me if this patch works with Fast_ipsec or is it just
for the other ipsec?
Cheers,
Mike
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:26:15PM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
> Hey All,
> When installing the ipsec-tools it says if you want NAT-T you need to
> install this patch, http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net/freebsd6-natt.diff
> Can any one tell me if this patch works with Fast_ipsec or is it just
> f
Hello everyone!
Who can explain me why
BDG_MAX_PORTS 128 (/usr/src/sys/net/bridge.h) have maximum number of
bridge interfaces 128?
Thanks!
P.S. Sorry for my bad eng.
--
With Best Regards,
Victor V. Melnichenko
VVM7-UANIC
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org
VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:26:15PM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
Hey All,
When installing the ipsec-tools it says if you want NAT-T you need to
install this patch, http://ipsec-tools.sourceforge.net/freebsd6-natt.diff
Can any one tell me if this patch works with Fast_i
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 01:20:17AM +1000, Michael Vince wrote:
[NAT-T patch]
> OK cool, the thing that really turns my off about that IPSec is when I
> reboot with it compiled in says "Expect reduced performance" because its
> not mpsafe.
>
> Also I just tried to compile a kernel with that Nat-T
I am getting a panic with a GENERIC with all non-available hardware
drivers stripped out with "device fddi" and "device fpa" in the config.
The only things I added to GENERIC after stripping out the unneeded
things was the fddi, the sound, and the openfirmware. The system boots
fine with the
The following reply was made to PR kern/99188; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Staffan Ulfberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/99188: [tcp] [patch] FIN in same packet as duplicate ACK is
lost
Date: 20 Jun 2006 21:49:16 +0200
I forgot to say that the Windows X
Everyone:
I've got an application in which I must block incoming TCP
connections to a FreeBSD server from a potentially large list of IP
addresses. Using IPFW is not a very efficient way to accomplish
this, because it must do a linear search of a list (either one
address per rule or an "or" l
Brett Glass (brett) writes:
>
> I've got an application in which I must block incoming TCP
> connections to a FreeBSD server from a potentially large list of IP
> addresses. Using IPFW is not a very efficient way to accomplish
> this, because it must do a linear search of a list (either one
>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 10:57:30PM +0200, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Brett Glass (brett) writes:
> >
> > I've got an application in which I must block incoming TCP
> > connections to a FreeBSD server from a potentially large list of IP
> > addresses. Using IPFW is not a very efficient way to accompl
On 6/21/06, Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everyone:
I've got an application in which I must block incoming TCP
connections to a FreeBSD server from a potentially large list of IP
addresses. Using IPFW is not a very efficient way to accomplish
this, because it must do a linear search of
At 03:07 PM 6/20/2006, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>there are efficient tables in ipfw as well, which Ruslan implemented
>some time ago -- yet another reason we should be grateful to him
How would I build a table of arbitrary IP addresses and be able
to update it atomically (i.e. add and delete individua
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:22:46PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 03:07 PM 6/20/2006, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> >there are efficient tables in ipfw as well, which Ruslan implemented
> >some time ago -- yet another reason we should be grateful to him
>
> How would I build a table of arbitrary IP add
Oh, by the way: I should mention that the server is running FreeBSD
4.11. It's doing file-intensive work, and file system performance
in FreeBSD 6.x is noticeably slower.
Your message does suggest another possible solution, though. Would
blackhole routes be more efficient than using IPFW?
--Brett
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:26:25PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> Oh, by the way: I should mention that the server is running FreeBSD
> 4.11. It's doing file-intensive work, and file system performance
> in FreeBSD 6.x is noticeably slower.
ipfw tables are also in 4.11
> Your message does suggest an
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 12:47:54PM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote..
> I am getting a panic with a GENERIC with all non-available hardware
> drivers stripped out with "device fddi" and "device fpa" in the config.
> The only things I added to GENERIC after stripping out the unneeded
> things was the fdd
Hello,
I could not figureout the answer to a question. Here is the situation:
PC A: Windows XP Pro.
PC B: FreeBSD 6.1, connected to internet, acting as a gateway for PC
A, with NAT (built by hanbook instructions
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-natd.html),
open f
20 matches
Mail list logo
