Notice to Appear,
You have not paid for driving on a toll road.
Please service your debt in the shortest possible time.
You can review the invoice in the attachment.
Kind regards,
Joseph Horn,
E-ZPass Agent.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
h
Hi.
Why we still have this anachronism - routes via lo0 even for ethernet
interfaces ? Seems like no other modern OS has such antiquities.
Eugene.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscr
hselasky added a comment.
lstewart: We can generate a paper documenting the benefits of enlarging the
IP-packet input payload, so that we can fully understand what is going on.
Going the multipacket approach seems a bit more tricky, hence it involves
changing the TCP and posibly also if_output(
On 17/06/2015 18:04, el...@sentor.se wrote:
It sounds like a promisc bug in the driver, just as you say, but just
to test it some more:
I see that you are running both in PPROMISC and PROMISC.
What happen if you remove the PPROMISC and only let tcpdump set it's own
PROMISC?
I've tried bo
I don't know. But I do know that if you delete the lo0 route, then
you can't talk to services running on localhost. On a system with
multiple fibs, that might conceivably be useful.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Why we still have this anachronism - routes
nvass-gmx.com updated this revision to Diff 6288.
nvass-gmx.com added a comment.
Updated to today's head branch. Please review
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1944?vs=5290&id=6288
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1944
AFFECTED FILES
sys/net/pfvar.h
sy
gnn closed this revision.
gnn added a comment.
I believe we can close this.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1777
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: rrs, imp, rwatson, lstewart, kib, adrian, jhb, bz, sbruno, gnn
Cc: ae, bz, freebs
