The following reply was made to PR kern/122295; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Manuel Kasper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kern/122295: [bge] bge Ierr rate increase (since 6.0R) [regression]
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:48:29 +0200
We've been
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:01:46 -0500
> mgrooms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is anyone currently looking at the IPsec NAT-T patches? I posted a similar
>> question several months ago around the FAST_IPSEC + IPv6 integra
Dear All,
Recently i've been upgrading some of my machines from FreeBSD 6.x amd64
to FreeBSD 7.0 amd64.
After upgrading I noticed a weird error/bug. It seems that after several
thousand TCP connections some seem to hang in 'CLOSED' state.
netstat -n gives:
...
tcp4 0 0 1.2.3.4.*
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:01:46 -0500
mgrooms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is anyone currently looking at the IPsec NAT-T patches? I posted a similar
question several months ago around the FAST_IPSEC
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> where is the patch?
>
>
The version that we use in RELENG_7_0 is located here:
http://cvs.pfsense.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/tools/patches/RELENG_7_0/patch-natt-freebsd7-2008-03-11.diff?rev=1.1;content-type=text%2Fplain
This looks like an issue we used to have at work, where a streaming
application suddenly started getting kevents for sockets that had been
already closed. While that was happening, a netstat output looked just
like yours. We never tracked it down, as we moved to other projects :(
Was that B
On 6/25/08, Ali Niknam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Recently i've been upgrading some of my machines from FreeBSD 6.x amd64 to
> FreeBSD 7.0 amd64.
>
> After upgrading I noticed a weird error/bug. It seems that after several
> thousand TCP connections some seem to hang in 'CLOSED' s
On 6/25/08, Ali Niknam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This looks like an issue we used to have at work, where a streaming
> > application suddenly started getting kevents for sockets that had been
> > already closed. While that was happening, a netstat output looked just
> > like yours. We never
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
where is the patch?
The version that we use in RELENG_7_0 is located here:
http://cvs.pfsense.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/tools/patches/RELENG_7_0/patch-natt-freebsd7-2008-03-11.diff?rev=1.1;content-
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Ali Niknam wrote:
Recently i've been upgrading some of my machines from FreeBSD 6.x amd64 to
FreeBSD 7.0 amd64.
After upgrading I noticed a weird error/bug. It seems that after several
thousand TCP connections some seem to hang in 'CLOSED' state.
Sounds like there's a
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Yuri Lukin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the original author of the patch has one that should work with
> current:
>
> http://vanhu.free.fr/FreeBSD/
Even better.
Looks like http://vanhu.free.fr/FreeBSD/patch-natt-freebsd-HEAD-2008-03-19.diff
might be sem
Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
> where is the patch?
It seems that the last patch to -current is available here :
http://vanhu.free.fr/FreeBSD/patch-natt-freebsd-HEAD-2008-03-19.diff
Maybe Yvan has a more recent patch available (CCed)
--
Ce ne sont que des propositions. Je n
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Julian Elischer wrote:
Hi Julian,
I don't have time to do a lot of work on it, but if you can get me a patch
that applies cleanly on -current
and that you have tested, along with testing other cases (e.g. not compiled
in)
then I can give it a look over and if it looks ok
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if it would be that easy, it would have happened 2 years ago.
What can we as a community do to assist in making this easier and doable?
Scott
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailin
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:34:56 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote
> Scott Ullrich wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> where is the patch?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The version that we use in RELENG_7_0 is located here:
> >
http://cvs.pfsense.org/cgi-bin
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Yuri Lukin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe the original author of the patch has one that should work with
current:
http://vanhu.free.fr/FreeBSD/
Even better.
Looks like http://vanhu.free.fr/FreeBSD/patch-natt-freebsd-HEAD-2008-03-19
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> do you have the ability to test this?
Absolutely. Is this the only thing from preventing it being merged into HEAD?
Scott
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lis
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:30:36PM -0400, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > do you have the ability to test this?
>
> Absolutely. Is this the only thing from preventing it being merged into
> HEAD?
No. It's a large and compl
I finally got the problem, and it had nothing to do either with vlans or
with carp.
The firewall I was setting up was meant to replace an existing freebsd
firewall
which didn't use vlans (it had a lot of nics).
The problem was that the network port where our ISP brings the internet
connection
Hi Robert,
Sounds like there's a bug somewhere. Before we start trying to track it
[...]
So, with that introduction, we're interested in resolving:
Quite comprehensive indeed; thank you for all that information. I was
not aware that there was a decoupling between the various parts of the
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Julian Elischer wrote:
Hi Julian,
I don't have time to do a lot of work on it, but if you can get me a
patch that applies cleanly on -current
and that you have tested, along with testing other cases (e.g. not
compiled in)
then I can give it a look o
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:34:56 -0700, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Scott Ullrich wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> where is the patch?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The version that we use in RELENG_7_0 is located here:
>>
>
http://cvs.pf
Scott Ullrich wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if it would be that easy, it would have happened 2 years ago.
What can we as a community do to assist in making this easier and doable?
that is the question..
NAT-T is a very useful feature, and
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:13:54AM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> Am Di, 24.06.2008, 23:26, schrieb Erik Osterholm:
> > Can anyone tell me if there are good reasons for explicitly leaving
> > ALTQ out of the kernel? More specific to my circumstances, if I'm
> > building kernels to be inst
Ali Niknam wrote:
Hi Robert,
[snip]
I will double check this once more, but honestly, i strongly doubt it...
Also one other thing that I've noticed, is that it's always the input
buffer that has bytes left; never the output buffer...
Moreover, i've seen that close() reports EBADF, but du
Giulio Ferro wrote:
I finally got the problem, and it had nothing to do either with vlans or
with carp.
The firewall I was setting up was meant to replace an existing freebsd
firewall
which didn't use vlans (it had a lot of nics).
The problem was that the network port where our ISP brings the
26 matches
Mail list logo
