Re: resolver inside a jail

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Edwin Groothuis wrote: [loopback address in jail] Is this something I should open a bug report for? No, it's a well known "feature" of jails that INADDR_LOOPBACK gets translated to the jails address. There is no INADDR_LOOPBACK inside a jail - check ifconfig ;) -- Bjoern

Current problem reports assigned to you

Current FreeBSD problem reports Critical problems Serious problems S Tracker Resp. Description a kern/38554 netchanging interface ipaddress doesn't seem to work s kern/39937 netipstealth

Re: resolver inside a jail

On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 09:34:22AM +, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > > [loopback address in jail] > >Is this something I should open a bug report for? > > No, it's a well known "feature" of jails that INADDR_LOOPBACK gets > translated to the jails addres

addition to ipfw..

in ipfw layer 2 processing, the packet is passed to the firewall as if it was a layer 3 IP packet but the ether header is also made available. I would like to add something similar in the case where a vlan tag is also on the packet.. basically I have a change where: If we are processing lay

Re: addition to ipfw..

Julian Elischer wrote: in ipfw layer 2 processing, the packet is passed to the firewall as if it was a layer 3 IP packet but the ether header is also made available. I would like to add something similar in the case where a vlan tag is also on the packet.. basically I have a change where:

Re: addition to ipfw..

Andre Oppermann wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: in ipfw layer 2 processing, the packet is passed to the firewall as if it was a layer 3 IP packet but the ether header is also made available. I would like to add something similar in the case where a vlan tag is also on the packet.. basically

Adding a new VPN connection

Hi, In a FreeBSD router (5.4-stable), there are currently 50 IPSEC VPN connections running with 50 remote sites, now I need to add one more (new) vpn to it without resetting the existing VPN connection. Therefore I have created a script (new-vpn.sh): #!/bin/sh # Tunnel to kgportsmith /sbin/ifc

Re: addition to ipfw..

On Monday 11 December 2006 23:58, Julian Elischer wrote: > Andre Oppermann wrote: > > Julian Elischer wrote: > >> in ipfw layer 2 processing, the packet is passed to the firewall > >> as if it was a layer 3 IP packet but the ether header is also made > >> available. > >> > >> I would like to add s

Re: addition to ipfw..

Max Laier wrote: On Monday 11 December 2006 23:58, Julian Elischer wrote: Andre Oppermann wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: in ipfw layer 2 processing, the packet is passed to the firewall as if it was a layer 3 IP packet but the ether header is also made available. I would like to add something

Re: addition to ipfw..

Max Laier wrote: On Monday 11 December 2006 23:58, Julian Elischer wrote: Andre Oppermann wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: in ipfw layer 2 processing, the packet is passed to the firewall as if it was a layer 3 IP packet but the ether header is also made available. I would like to add something

TCP payload size and throughput

Hi friends, I know there is some relationship between the packet size and the TCP throughput. But what if two TCP Sack flows have the same MTU size, but different header size (hence different payload size) ? Is there any work that model this issue before? Thank you! gavin __

VLAN implementation

Hi, I had a question regarding routing in freeBSD for VLAN enabled packets. Looks like freeBSD does not include VLAN information into the routing table. My question is, when we have two remote hosts connected through two different VLANs (probably on two different physical interfaces on the local