Le 19 sept. 07 à 16:59, Fabien THOMAS a écrit :
Result of pcap benchmark requested by Vlad Galu:
Using polling is better.
Test setup:
---
netblast -- em|fxp -- pcap_bmark
under FreeBSD 6.2
Small product (fxp interface):
---
pollng:
Captured
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 12:43:25PM -0400, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On 8/20/07, VANHULLEBUS Yvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I tracked down the problem a few years ago, on FreeBSD 4.11, with
> > KAME's IPSec stack.
> >
> > But the problem was not really in the stack itself, but rather in
> > socket
Hello,
We're working on expanding our wireless network. Unfortunately, we're
running out of IP addresses (aren't we all). As much as I'd love to just
tell everyone to use IPv6, that isn't gonna fly. The next plan to
consider is using an RFC1918 pool and NATing the traffic.
If only it were that s
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 03:58:16PM -0400, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> We have worked around the problem for now with a simple shell script
> that looks for racoon falling over and simply restarting it.
How are you detecting when racoon gets wedged? I'd like to replicate
that on our systems.
Thanks,
Hi,
Christopher Cowart wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're working on expanding our wireless network. Unfortunately, we're
> running out of IP addresses (aren't we all). As much as I'd love to just
> tell everyone to use IPv6, that isn't gonna fly. The next plan to
> consider is using an RFC1918 pool and
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:10:06 -0700
"Kevin Oberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ever run into a non-existent 'olive'?
Hi Kevin,
I dont understand :)
> Or even a J series Juniper?
> Juniper put together a very impressive software based routing system
> that is FreeBSD based.
Yes, I know of this,
Richard, good day.
Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:10:06PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > Interesting what is the golden aim of software based router we should be
> > trying to reach?
>
> Well for starters, to have a routing stack that is based on any modern
> techniques developed in the l
On Monday 24 September 2007, Cristian KLEIN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Christopher Cowart wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We're working on expanding our wireless network. Unfortunately, we're
> > running out of IP addresses (aren't we all). As much as I'd love to
> > just tell everyone to use IPv6, that isn't gonn
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
S Tracker Resp. Description
o kern/115360 net[ipv6] IPv6 address and if_bridge don't play well toge
o kern/116172 netNetwork / ipv6 recursi
On 9/24/07, Christopher Cowart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 03:58:16PM -0400, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> How are you detecting when racoon gets wedged? I'd like to replicate
> that on our systems.
Our script is primitive at best but does seem to do the job okay:
http://pfsense.
Christopher Cowart wrote:
Hello,
We're working on expanding our wireless network. Unfortunately, we're
running out of IP addresses (aren't we all). As much as I'd love to just
tell everyone to use IPv6, that isn't gonna fly. The next plan to
consider is using an RFC1918 pool and NATing the traf
On 9/23/07, Kip Macy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Kip Macy wrote:
> > > My ethng branch supports multiple rx and tx queues.
> > >
> > > -Kip
> > >
> >
> > What are your plans for how we use/manage/interact with the mutiple
> > rx/tx queues?
>
> divert
> ipnat
> ipfw's integrated nat
>
> I believe the integrated version makes configuration simpler. I would
> choose the old classic divert with ipfw if it is for a important network
> that must work, but if I was running -current I would try the integrated
> variant beacuse it seems to be
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:58:15AM +0300, Cristian KLEIN wrote:
>Christopher Cowart wrote:
>>We're working on expanding our wireless network. Unfortunately, we're
>>running out of IP addresses (aren't we all). As much as I'd love to just
>>tell everyone to use IPv6, that isn't gonna fly. The next p
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:57:19PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> On Monday 24 September 2007, Cristian KLEIN wrote:
> > Christopher Cowart wrote:
> > > The real question is: what's the best way to dynamically update the
> > > NAT table?
> >
> > You may use IPFW with IPNAT or PF instead. PF is able to r
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 01:26:13PM +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> original:
>> We're working on expanding our wireless network. Unfortunately, we're
>> running out of IP addresses (aren't we all). As much as I'd love to just
>> tell everyone to use IPv6, that isn't gonna fly. The next plan to
>
Christopher Cowart wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:58:15AM +0300, Cristian KLEIN wrote:
>> Christopher Cowart wrote:
>>> We're working on expanding our wireless network. Unfortunately, we're
>>> running out of IP addresses (aren't we all). As much as I'd love to just
>>> tell everyone to use IP
Randy Bush wrote:
divert
ipnat
ipfw's integrated nat
I believe the integrated version makes configuration simpler. I would
choose the old classic divert with ipfw if it is for a important network
that must work, but if I was running -current I would try the integrated
variant beacuse it seems to
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:44:47AM +0300, Cristian KLEIN wrote:
>Christopher Cowart wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:58:15AM +0300, Cristian KLEIN wrote:
>>> Christopher Cowart wrote:
We're working on expanding our wireless network. Unfortunately, we're
running out of IP addresses (ar
19 matches
Mail list logo
