Please review this patch and synopsis; all comments are appreciated.
Synopsis: wi(4) hardware does not natively support IFF_ALLMULTI.
Background:
ConsumeX is a community-owned and operated wireless network collective based
in South East London. Multicast streaming is a highly desirable feature
fo
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 'k, but I want to use the managed aspect of it to be able to hard code the
> port rates (ie. to fix this full-duplex issue initially) as well as be
> able to access SNMP so that I can do bandwidth monitoring of external
> traffic .
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 01:23:24PM +0200, Knocke wrote:
> Could somebode give me hint what to do? Is there any tool to connect to existing TCP
> socket and dump its state per each segment sent or received? Or any other way to
> achive the goal? It could be also a kind of dedicated benchmark tool
On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 11:27:11AM +0200, Knocke wrote:
> trpt on my system keeps on saying :
>
> % trpt: /boot/kernel/kernel: no namelist
>
> so probably no sockets are currently SO_DEBUG ready.
You probably need to recompile your kernel with makeoptions TCPDEBUG.
Diffing up something simple l
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 05:28:54PM +1000, User Ernie wrote:
> Anyone know of an AODV port to FreeBSD or any other mesh routing protocol
> that would suit a community wireless adhoc network?
My work is unfinished at this time due to lack of funding, but can be
found in Perforce at //depot/user/bms/
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:43:30PM -0700, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:28:23PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > It's completely un-needed except that some standards want to access
> > interfaces by index for statitics purposes.
>
> they're "un-needed" in much the same way th
Hey guys,
I'm really pressed for time at the moment and people are demanding a lot of
other things from me. So I'd like to float this patch set against HEAD
which does inbound TCP-MD5 verification, so far for SYNs only.
I took a decision to use sysctls rather than enlarge struct tcpstat to avoid
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 08:56:24AM +0700, Muhammad Reza wrote:
> I want some people in my network to connect to internet via ADSL and some
> people via T1, based on their IP.
> They said , i can do that with linux iproute tools, but i dont want to
> replace my FreeBSD-4.9Stable router with Li
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 07:30:30PM +0200, Christophe Prevotaux wrote:
> I thought this might be of interest to some of you
> even though I am sure many of you already know about this
>
> http://www.liberouter.org/
>
> Would be good to have standard support within FreeBSD tree
> for these :)
This
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:56:37PM +0800, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> It would be nice if patches where in the ports tree until they included
> in the vendor distribution. That is what ports are for, aren't they?
I haven't gotten round to this, my bad, and we're currently in freeze.
Regards
BMS
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:56:03PM +, Mónica Domingues wrote:
>What I trying to do is to buid a SSM plataform. I'am I doing this the
>right way?
FreeBSD doesn't implement Source-Specific Multicast yet, to the best of
my knowledge.
Someone at Berkeley was working on an IGMPv3 stack a w
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:29:58PM -0400, The Jetman wrote:
> I'm just confused as to why I lose SO much going thru my FBSD box and
> that's essence of my question. I can live w/ *some* overhead for the sake
> of using FBSD, but this is ridiculous. TIAJet
Are you using user space NAT? If
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:55:21PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> However I'm not yet sure we (better I) understand all implications of
> removing the things you do in your patch. Please hold off for a moment
> until I've finished thinking and looking through the implications.
I say can it. It a
601 - 613 of 613 matches
Mail list logo
