Yes, i applied the modifications at the level of dhclient.conf
2008/8/21 Frank Helbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Have you tried?
>
> interface "vlan0" {
> #My options
> }
> interface "vlan1" {
> #My options
> }
>
> Thats the way you identify your vlan nics...
>
> Frank
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:0
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 03:27:11AM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>The only thing i can think of is that it's the UDP checksum,
> >>residing beyond hlen, which is overwritten somewhere in the
> >>call to if_simloop -- in which case perhaps a better fix is
> >>to m_pull
Hello.
We've recently written an extensive software system that uses SCTP as a
critical component. We've started to run into an issue where the box kenel
panics after throwing an error message from sctp_timer.c that says "Our list
is out of order? Out of order list". Can anyone here shed light
On servers where used unix sockets, sometimes thread taskq start to eat 100%
CPU:
http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?474EFC5C.9060508
Addition info about this problem - when this occurs
sysctl net.local.inflight show negative number.
% sysctl net.local.inflight
net.local.inflight: -3
And thi
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 03:27:11AM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing i can think of is that it's the UDP checksum,
residing beyond hlen, which is overwritten somewhere in the
call to if_simloop -- in which case perhaps a better fix
On one of our sendmail boxes that we are running RELENG_7, we have
noticed an odd issue triggered or noticed by our monitoring system
(bigbrother in this case). The seems to have been happening ever
since we installed it, so its not a recent commit issue.
Every 5 min, one of our monitoring st
At Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:27:11 +0100,
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> The only thing i can think of is that it's the UDP checksum,
> >> residing beyond hlen, which is overwritten somewhere in the
> >> call to if_simloop -- in which case perhaps a better fix is
> >> to m_pul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I gather you mean that a fast link on which also we're looping back
the packet will be an issue? Since this packet is only going into the
simloop() routine.
We end up calling if_simloop() from a few "interesting" places, in
particular the kernel PIM packet handler.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On one of our sendmail boxes that we are running RELENG_7, we have noticed an
odd issue triggered or noticed by our monitoring system (bigbrother in this
case). The seems to have been happening ever since we installed it, so its
not a recent commit issu
At 03:12 PM 8/22/2008, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
can you make sure you have this?
http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/181596
Hi,
I do. I am running a GENERIC kernel but with inet6 disabled from yesterday
7.0-STABLE #0: Thu Aug 21 10:27:04 EDT 2008
and with the patch below as TOE seems to be b
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:43:03PM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I gather you mean that a fast link on which also we're looping back
> >the packet will be an issue? Since this packet is only going into the
> >simloop() routine.
> >
>
> We end up calling if_simloop
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 03:12 PM 8/22/2008, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
can you make sure you have this?
http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/181596
Hi,
I do. I am running a GENERIC kernel but with inet6 disabled from yesterday
7.0-STABLE #0: Thu Aug 21 10:27:04 EDT 2008
and
Old Synopsis: kernel panic when sending file via ng_ubt
New Synopsis: [panic] kernel panic when sending file via ng_ubt(4)
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Aug 22 20:02:51 UTC 2008
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Over to
At 04:01 PM 8/22/2008, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Mike Tancsa wrote:
At 03:12 PM 8/22/2008, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
can you make sure you have this?
http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/181596
Hi,
I do. I am running a GENERIC kernel but with inet6 disabled from yesterday
7.0
At Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:42:00 +0200,
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:43:03PM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >I gather you mean that a fast link on which also we're looping back
> > >the packet will be an issue? Since this packet is only going into
At Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:43:03 +0100,
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
>
> We end up calling if_simloop() from a few "interesting" places, in
> particular the kernel PIM packet handler.
>
> In this particular case we're going to take a full mbuf chain copy every
> time we send a packet which needs to be l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somehow the data that the device needs to do the proper checksum
offload is getting trashed here. Now, since it's clear we need a
writable packet structure so that we don't trash the original, I'm
wondering if the m_pullup() will be sufficient.
If it's serious enoug
At Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:43:39 +0100,
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Somehow the data that the device needs to do the proper checksum
> > offload is getting trashed here. Now, since it's clear we need a
> > writable packet structure so that we don't trash the original, I'm
The following reply was made to PR kern/126742; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/126742: [panic] kernel panic when sending file via ng_ubt(4)
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:27:39 GMT
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Originator: A
Hi everyone. Sorry to bump such an old post, but I have figured out a
'hack' to get this driver to work, and figured I'd post here, in case
it may help someone else.
Previously, I said the following, about a Broadcom 4318 chipset on a
Dell Inspiron b120:
"Upon 'kldunload bcmwl5.ko; kldload bcmwl5
Hi Guys
I am having a problem with my wireless network. The Issue is that
clients connected to the wireless LAN cannot _see_ other clients. My
understanding of 802.11 was that clients could talk to other clients,
except all traffic would go via the access point and that the AP would
forward o
The following reply was made to PR kern/126742; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/126742: [panic] kernel panic when sending file via ng_ubt(4)
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 02:13:27 GMT
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Originator: A
22 matches
Mail list logo
