On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Hi,
> we have recently worked on a project, called netmap, which lets
> FreeBSD send/receive packets at line rate even at 10 Gbit/s with
> very low CPU overhead: one core at 1.33 GHz does 14.88 Mpps with a
> modified ixgbe driver, which gives
If http://people.freebsd.org/~vanhu/NAT-T/patch-natt-7.2-2009-05-12.diff
patch is appropriate for FreeBSD 7.4-RELEASE too?
Can I use the patch with ipsec-tools 0.8?
2010/3/25 Oleg Fedorov
>
> Many thanks!
>
> I successfully apply this patch
> http://people.freebsd.org/~vanhu/NAT-T/patch-natt-7.2
t matches the feature set of HEAD and 8 from January is
http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/20110123-01-stable7-natt.diff
and on for stabl/7 from today can be found:
http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/20110603-02-stable7-natt.diff
Given them a try.
/bz
>
> 2010/3/25 Oleg Fedorov
>>
>
Hi list,
I've mailed FreeBSD Foundation about this, but for wider exposure this
seems like a good place too.
We are currently looking for some hardware solution that supports MPLS
and VPLS tunnels for IP and PPPoE (at the same end-point interface).
While testing RedBack SmartEdge router and seein
On 03.06.2011 18:04, Pawel Tyll wrote:
Hi list,
I've mailed FreeBSD Foundation about this, but for wider exposure this
seems like a good place too.
We are currently looking for some hardware solution that supports MPLS
and VPLS tunnels for IP and PPPoE (at the same end-point interface).
While t
Hi Alexander,
> Actually, I'm working on MPLS support.
> Project page: http://freebsd.mpls.in
> Wiki: http://freebsd.mpls.in/wiki/index.php?title=Architecture
> Documentation is a bit outdated especially in QoS case
> I plan to get L3VPN working in several weeks
That's excellent news. Should yo
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Pawel Tyll wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> > Actually, I'm working on MPLS support.
>
> > Project page: http://freebsd.mpls.in
> > Wiki: http://freebsd.mpls.in/wiki/index.php?title=Architecture
>
> > Documentation is a bit outdated especially in QoS case
>
> > I plan t
On 06/02/2011 06:16 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
...
Commercial-grade routers (read: Cisco, Juniper) all implement a form of
ICMP prioritisation. The router can (and will) discard/drop inbound
ICMP packets directed at the router itself (e.g. a destination IP of the
gateway) during high CPU utilisa
I'd say this PR is off the mark. I use PC Card and CardBus cards all the time.
The Xircom patch in question should be in -current already. I likely haven't
MFC'd it. There are two classes of problems lingering from the old days: the
Xircom one (where a certain type of CIS fails, but so far o
