ipfw nat and dual-homed box

2011-02-27 Thread Eugene Grosbein
Hi! Consider LAN using private IP addresses and NAT box with two uplinks to distinct internet providers each of which supplies us with one public IP only. With natd's "multiple instances" feature it's easy to setup dual-homed NAT box correctly, so that replies for incoming packets get translated

Re: ipfw nat and dual-homed box

2011-02-27 Thread Eugene Grosbein
On 27.02.2011 17:08, Eugene Grosbein wrote: [skip] > For performance reasons, I need to create similar setup using in-kernel "ipfw > nat" > what does not have such "multiple instances" feature but has its own > "keep-state" mechanics: To correct myself: of course, ipfw nat has multiple instanc

Re: Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056

2011-02-27 Thread Fernando Gont
On 08/02/2011 03:47 p.m., Doug Barton wrote: [catching up with e-mail] > I've been up and running on this patch vs. r218391 for over 24 hours > now, using algorithm 4 (as someone said is now the default in Linux) > without any problems. > > I think Bjoern is better qualified than I to comment on

Re: Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056

2011-02-27 Thread Doug Barton
On 02/27/2011 12:23, Fernando Gont wrote: On 08/02/2011 03:47 p.m., Doug Barton wrote: [catching up with e-mail] I've been up and running on this patch vs. r218391 for over 24 hours now, using algorithm 4 (as someone said is now the default in Linux) without any problems. I think Bjoern is be

Re: Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056

2011-02-27 Thread Fernando Gont
On 27/02/2011 05:38 p.m., Doug Barton wrote: >> Has this been commited to the tree, already? -- If so, what's the >> default algorithm? > > Bjoern was planning to do it, I'm going to do it if he doesn't get > around to it. > > As for default algorithm, is there any reason not to make it 4? Not

Re: Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056

2011-02-27 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Fernando Gont wrote: Hi, On 27/02/2011 05:38 p.m., Doug Barton wrote: Has this been commited to the tree, already? -- If so, what's the default algorithm? Bjoern was planning to do it, I'm going to do it if he doesn't get around to it. As for default algorithm, is ther

Re: Proposed patch for Port Randomization modifications according to RFC6056

2011-02-27 Thread Doug Barton
On 02/27/2011 14:05, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Fernando Gont wrote: Hi, On 27/02/2011 05:38 p.m., Doug Barton wrote: Has this been commited to the tree, already? -- If so, what's the default algorithm? Bjoern was planning to do it, I'm going to do it if he doesn't get arou

Re: kern/154959: [age] "Bad packet length xxxxx, Disconnecting: Packet corrupt" (unless TSO, rxcsum, txcsum are disabled)

2011-02-27 Thread yongari
Synopsis: [age] "Bad packet length x, Disconnecting: Packet corrupt" (unless TSO, rxcsum, txcsum are disabled) State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback State-Changed-By: yongari State-Changed-When: Mon Feb 28 02:25:46 UTC 2011 State-Changed-Why: I guess TSO and TX checksum offloading have nothi

Mini PCI express cards for TDMA on FreeBSD?

2011-02-27 Thread Kyungsoo Lee
Hi guys, anyone uses mini PCI express cards for TDMA on FreeBSD? I tried to use Anatel AR5BXB6 on IBM laptops. But it doesn't work when I set the node as Master(tdmaslot 0) with PANIC or "ATH0: stuck beacons;..". Is there any solution to solve the above problem? Or does anybody succeed to use TDM