On 30/11/2007, Jan Srzednicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most of the relevant sockets (that is, between the two host mentioned)
> are in the ESTABLISHED state (200-400 of those). Only 20-40 are in
> TIME_WAIT state (these tend to be from a more ephemeric POP3 service). Most
> of the EADDRINUSE h
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Hi,
In addition to that can you try this patch:
http://sources.zabbadoz.net/freebsd/patchset/patch-20071128-03-tcp-md5.diff
I have to admit, I haven't tried it after my last merges so I hope I
got the merges right;-)
I've manually patched a 7.0 kerne
Old Synopsis: [ipfilter] keep state does not seem to allow replies in on spar64
(and maybe others)
New Synopsis: hme0: Interface unable to do tx and rx checksumming when using
ipfilter.
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 07:04:41PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Old Synopsis: [ipfilter] keep state does not seem to allow replies in on
> spar64 (and maybe others)
> New Synopsis: hme0: Interface unable to do tx and rx checksumming when using
> ipfilter.
>
> Responsible-Changed-From-
The following diff removes some (whart looks to me to be) duplicate code.
Anyone care to comment before I commit it?
(I'm trying to imagine a case where it does something useful to do this twice
but not really succeeding).
Index: in6.c
=
Hello everybody.
I have recently examined the keep-alive mechanism in FreeBSD's TCP
stack and found out that it has no tunable variables for keep-alive on
a per-socket basis.
Is anyone interested in a patch like this one?
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-net/2007/06/19/0001.html
Alternatively,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 10:42:59AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Jan Srzednicki wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 10:22:08AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> How can I get any usable information from netstat? It shows a bunch of
>> connections, of course, but since connect(2) failed, I have no id
Andrew Alcheyev wrote:
I have recently examined the keep-alive mechanism in FreeBSD's TCP
stack and found out that it has no tunable variables for keep-alive on
a per-socket basis.
Is anyone interested in a patch like this one?
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-net/2007/06/19/0001.html
Alternati
The following reply was made to PR kern/106438; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Remko Lodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Manuel Tobias Schiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kern/106438: ipfilter: keep state does not seem to allow replies
in on spar64 (and maybe others)
Dat
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
I'm very pleased to see ECN finally being implemented in FreeBSD.
Whilst I can't offer technical assistance in testing or review at this
time, I would like to thank you for the clearly professional level of
effort you have put into this.
Thanks! Much appreciated!
--
10 matches
Mail list logo
