Nathan Lay wrote:
> I started playing with IPv6 on my home network with the intent to
> transition over. While many things work quite well, IPv6 technology in
> general still seems to have some rough edges.
I disagree. I believe the "rough edges" do not belong to IPv6, the
"rough edges" are the a
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Lay wrote:
In terms of FreeBSD support, rtadvd and rtsol do not yet support (easily? -O
option in rtadvd/rtsold) RFC5006 (Router Advertisements Option for DNS
Configuration) which make it inconvenient to use mobile devices (like
We'll happily accept a patch;-)
Oh
--- On Thu, 4/23/09, Ed Maste wrote:
> From: Ed Maste
> Subject: Re: Interrupts + Polling mode (similar to Linux's NAPI)
> To: "Andrew Brampton"
> Cc: atti...@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Luigi Rizzo"
>
> Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009, 3:04 PM
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:05:00
Very good thinking, congratulations, but my need is another.
The objective is a Captive Porrtal that each authentication is
dynamically created a rule to ALLOW or COUNT IP authenticated, which I'm
testing is what is the maximum capacity of rules supported, therefore
simultaneous user.
Underst
I was in a similar position to you not that long ago. I got my LAN all dual
stack and was a happy camper. I wanted 100% IPv6 and never to see another
RFC 1918 address on my network again. Unfortunately it's just not practical.
My ReadyNAS doesn't talk v6. My mac doesn't appear to like v6 for the fi
Nathan Lay wrote:
I started playing with IPv6 on my home network with the intent to
transition over. While many things work quite well, IPv6 technology
in general still seems to have some rough edges.
In terms of FreeBSD support, rtadvd and rtsol do not yet support
(easily? -O option in rtad
In response to Daniel Dias Gonçalves :
> Very good thinking, congratulations, but my need is another.
> The objective is a Captive Porrtal that each authentication is
> dynamically created a rule to ALLOW or COUNT IP authenticated, which I'm
> testing is what is the maximum capacity of rules sup
What are your problems with using radvd? I have used it quite a bit on
FreeBSD (6.1) without any hassle. It's even written quite nicely in my
experience so working on patches for it should be quite do-able if there
are features missing.
He's saying that the router announcements don't contain a
You'd almost certainly be better off hacking up an extension to ipfw
which lets you count a /24 in one rule.
As in, the count rule would match on the subnet/netmask, have 256 32
(or 64 bit) integers allocated to record traffic in, and then do an
O(1) operation using the last octet of the v4 addres
> To my knowledge this wasn't around when the Kame guys were working on this
> stuff. I don't think a lot of time has been spent updating the v6 support
> applications since then and that's why we don't have this feature.
>
> This isn't a big deal in dual-stack networks because the clients just
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Daniel Dias Gonçalves :
Very good thinking, congratulations, but my need is another.
The objective is a Captive Porrtal that each authentication is
dynamically created a rule to ALLOW or COUNT IP authenticated, which I'm
testing is what is the maximum capacity
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:03:52AM -0700, Barney Cordoba wrote:
> Actually, the "advantage of using interrupts" is to have a per
> NIC control without having all of the extra code to implement
> polling. Using variable interrupt moderation is much more desirable
> and efficient, so polling is only
Bob Van Zant wrote:
What are your problems with using radvd? I have used it quite a bit on
FreeBSD (6.1) without any hassle. It's even written quite nicely in my
experience so working on patches for it should be quite do-able if
there are features missing.
He's saying that the router announce
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Nathan Lay wrote:
I started playing with IPv6 on my home network with the intent to
transition over. While many things work quite well, IPv6 technology in
general still seems to have some rough edges.
I disagree. I believe the "rough edges" do not belong to IPv6,
Matthew Jakeman wrote:
Nathan Lay wrote:
I started playing with IPv6 on my home network with the intent to
transition over. While many things work quite well, IPv6 technology
in general still seems to have some rough edges.
In terms of FreeBSD support, rtadvd and rtsol do not yet support
(e
> > is VIMAGE fully integrated into FreeBSD 8 CURRENT? (I believe this
> > answer is no)
> > also is VIMAGE expected to make it into FreeBSD 8?
>
> not fully but a lot of it is under way
Thanks for the pointer, I currently don't get it [1] to build on RELENG_7 which
I naively hoped, so the "lot
On Friday 24 April 2009 22:29:23 Peter Cornelius wrote:
> > > is VIMAGE fully integrated into FreeBSD 8 CURRENT? (I believe this
> > > answer is no)
> > > also is VIMAGE expected to make it into FreeBSD 8?
> >
> > not fully but a lot of it is under way
>
> Thanks for the pointer, I currently don't
Daniel Dias Gonçalves wrote:
Very good thinking, congratulations, but my need is another.
The objective is a Captive Porrtal that each authentication is
dynamically created a rule to ALLOW or COUNT IP authenticated, which I'm
testing is what is the maximum capacity of rules supported, therefore
Hi all,
I have been hitting some barrier with FreeBSD 7.1 network performance. I
have written an application which contains two kernel threads that takes
mbufs directly from a network interface and forwards to another network
interface. This idea is to simulate different network environment.
I
19 matches
Mail list logo
