Hi Navdeep,
Indeed, we have reviewed the code, and we think it is ok to
implement nm_os_ifnet_lock() with IFNET_RLOCK(), instead of using
IFNET_WLOCK().
Since IFNET_RLOCK() results into sx_slock(), this should fix the issue.
On FreeBSD, this locking is needed to protect a flag read by nm_iszomb
Hi,
I have a router that is mutli-homed with BGP. One of my peers is using
an RFC3927 address for the connection. If I traceroute to host behind
that route where we use a route via this peer to reply, the ICMP reply
display that link-local IP:
1. AS12876 195-154-86-1.rev.poneytelecom.eu (195.15
20.12.2016 1:46, Alarig Le Lay пишет:
Is it possible to avoid this behaviour and reply with the public IP
(89.234.186.1) instead?
try: sysctl net.inet.icmp.reply_from_interface=1
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mai
On Tue Dec 20 01:51:17 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 20.12.2016 1:46, Alarig Le Lay пишет:
>
> > Is it possible to avoid this behaviour and reply with the public IP
> > (89.234.186.1) instead?
>
> try: sysctl net.inet.icmp.reply_from_interface=1
If an AS choose to go to us thought this peer, pa
IFNET_RLOCK will work, thanks.
Navdeep
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Vincenzo Maffione wrote:
> Hi Navdeep,
>
> Indeed, we have reviewed the code, and we think it is ok to
> implement nm_os_ifnet_lock() with IFNET_RLOCK(), instead of using
> IFNET_WLOCK().
> Since IFNET_RLOCK() results into
20.12.2016 2:05, Alarig Le Lay пишет:
On Tue Dec 20 01:51:17 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
20.12.2016 1:46, Alarig Le Lay пишет:
Is it possible to avoid this behaviour and reply with the public IP
(89.234.186.1) instead?
try: sysctl net.inet.icmp.reply_from_interface=1
If an AS choose to go
On 12/16/16 at 11:20P, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 15.12.2016 20:51, hiren panchasara wrote:
> > On 12/15/16 at 05:23P, Eugene M. Zheganin wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> Sometimes on one of my servers I got dmesg full of
> >>
> >> sonewconn: pcb 0xf80373aec000: Listen queue overflow: 49 already in
On Tue Dec 20 02:34:29 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> Well, you can always use brute force instead:
>
> ipfw nat 169 config reset ip 89.234.186.1 && \
> ipfw add 60 nat 169 ip from 169.254.0.0/16 to any out xmit igb0
>
> That's ugly but works.
I will work just by side effect: by doing this, I wi
On 19/12/2016 21:01, Alarig Le Lay wrote:
On Tue Dec 20 02:34:29 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
Well, you can always use brute force instead:
ipfw nat 169 config reset ip 89.234.186.1 && \
ipfw add 60 nat 169 ip from 169.254.0.0/16 to any out xmit igb0
That's ugly but works.
I will work just b
20.12.2016 4:01, Alarig Le Lay пишет:
On Tue Dec 20 02:34:29 2016, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
Well, you can always use brute force instead:
ipfw nat 169 config reset ip 89.234.186.1 && \
ipfw add 60 nat 169 ip from 169.254.0.0/16 to any out xmit igb0
That's ugly but works.
I will work just by si
10 matches
Mail list logo