On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 11:04:44AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At Sun, 3 Sep 2006 15:22:14 +0200,
> John Hay wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anybody know how to add a direct IPv6 host route that actually works?
> > What I mean is not through a gateway, but for one directly reachable.
> >
>
Brooks Davis wrote:
> In many ways I think the best thing to do is remove plip from GENERIC
> and be done with it.
That works for me, and would match what I believe is the reasonable
expectation of our users.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
__
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:51:21PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote:
> This is a patch for the stack and the em driver to enable TSO
> on CURRENT. Previously I had problems getting it to work, but
> this is functional.
>
> I should note that CURRENT is being a pain right now, when
> I comment out em
Robert Watson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jack Vogel wrote:
This is a patch for the stack and the em driver to enable TSO on
CURRENT. Previously I had problems getting it to work, but this is
functional.
I should note that CURRENT is being a pain right now, when I comment
out em in the confi
Dear All,
I am running freebsd as getway for my office. I Just acquired second
Internet last week. I wonder if there is a way trhough route add -net and
ipfw I can manipulate my traffic in a such way that some traffic to a
selected network can go through one ISP while the rest goes through the
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
Serious problems
S Tracker Resp. Description
o kern/92552 netA serious bug in most network drivers from 5.X to 6.X
f kern/93220 net[inet
> >
> >Any help?
> >
> >danny
>
> Have discussed this some internally, the best idea I've heard is that
> UDP is not giving us the interrupt rate that TCP would, so we end up
> not cleaning up as often, and thus descriptors might not be as quickly
> available.. Its just speculation at this
No experience required
Trainning provided
No joining fee
National Online Talent Management
Australias Fastest Growing Modeling & Casting Agency
We are currently submitting both workers and people who are willing to be our
agents in Australia(representatives), models and actors for TV co
I'm finding IPSec NAT-Traversal support patch for 6-stable and
7-current. But I could only find it for 6.0-R and 4-stable:-(.
Where is IPSec NAT-T support patch?
And why does IPSec NAT-T support be comitted into src tree?
NetBSD already supports IPSec NAT-Tr
On 9/4/06, Norikatsu Shigemura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm finding IPSec NAT-Traversal support patch for 6-stable and
7-current. But I could only find it for 6.0-R and 4-stable:-(.
Where is IPSec NAT-T support patch?
And why does IPSec NAT-T support be comitted
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On 9/4/06, Norikatsu Shigemura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm finding IPSec NAT-Traversal support patch for 6-stable and
7-current. But I could only find it for 6.0-R and 4-stable:-(.
Where is IPSec NAT-T support patch?
A
On 9/4/06, Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It does apply and compile to RELENG_6_1 and RELENG_6 of some days ago
(unless you do not enable the option after applying the patch).
At least it did for me.
I am partly fine with the "does not work" (in all cases). I am
currently debugging thi
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Scott Ullrich wrote:
On 9/4/06, Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It does apply and compile to RELENG_6_1 and RELENG_6 of some days ago
(unless you do not enable the option after applying the patch).
At least it did for me.
I am partly fine with the "does not work" (
On 9/4/06, Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you sure this is a clean RELENG_6_1 with the correct patch?
MD5 (freebsd6-natt.diff) = 5e7bb5a3203c8959928bf910d5498140
Yes it was a clean RELENG_6_1.
I compiled this on i386 and am64 just a few days ago and everything
was fine.
Perhap
"Scott Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
> Maybe it is because I am including FAST_IPSEC? I have attempted to
> build and use a NAT-T kernel on atleast 7 attempts now. Last of which
> was a couple months ago.
Yvan's patch addresses NATT only with KAME stack.
He's been talking about wo
On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Scott Ullrich wrote:
Maybe it is because I am including FAST_IPSEC? I have attempted to
build and use a NAT-T kernel on atleast 7 attempts now. Last of which
was a couple months ago.
the patch only support kame ipsec. I guess that's the problem. Could
you try it building
On 9/4/06, Eric Masson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yvan's patch addresses NATT only with KAME stack.
He's been talking about work in progress regarding NATT support with
FAST_IPSEC on ipsec-tools-devel.
Thanks for the clarification. I look forward to when this works with
FAST_IPSEC as well :
On 9/4/06, Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the patch only support kame ipsec. I guess that's the problem. Could
you try it building with kame ipsec instead of fast_ipsec and let us
know if that worked?
That may work okay but then would I loose HIFN support, etc?
Scott
___
as the author of the route code in olsr I can explain what I was trying to do:
for routing purposes what we need are point-to-point routes, the
subnets on the mesh interfaces are there only to facilitate
broadcasting the routing packets. because of the way freebsd is
wired, to support multipl
Hi,
I am running a FreeBSD 5.4 stable as a network router.
I don't know any reason why one of the ethernet ports becomes half-duplex.
Here is its detail:
em1: flags=8843 mtu 1500
options=b
inet 60.1.2.3 netmask 0xfffc broadcast 220.233.99.39
ether 00:04:23:bc:3a:d1
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:18 , after knocking over a stack of dishes on
the heat sink Sam Wun
wondered out loud about:
> Hi,
> I am running a FreeBSD 5.4 stable as a network router.
> I don't know any reason why one of the ethernet ports becomes half-duplex.
> Here is its detail:
> em1: flags=8
At 04:18 PM 9/4/2006, Sam Wun wrote:
Hi,
I am running a FreeBSD 5.4 stable as a network router.
I don't know any reason why one of the ethernet ports becomes half-duplex.
Here is its detail:
em1: flags=8843 mtu 1500
options=b
inet 60.1.2.3 netmask 0xfffc broadcast 220.233.99.3
On 9/4/06, Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Jack Vogel wrote:
>
>> This is a patch for the stack and the em driver to enable TSO on
>> CURRENT. Previously I had problems getting it to work, but this is
>> functional.
>>
>> I should note that CU
23 matches
Mail list logo
