Peter Steele wrote:
When our boxes are initially deployed, they have no IP addresses
assigned to them. Their ifconfig entry looks like this:
ifconfig_lagg0="laggproto failover laggport nfe0 laggport nfe1"
With this config, no IP is assigned to the lagg0 device, so the only way
to access the box
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
The folk who point out that link-local addresses could be used, have
an interesting suggestion which might work for you.
Peter, I understand your issue with the (apparent) restriction of the
169.254/16 range, though I'd point out that the IPv4-LL addressing
scheme is
Bruce Walker wrote:
It was trivial to do this in a completely portable way using libpcap
and libnet.
Sorry, typo: I actually meant to say libdnet -- a different but similar
package. Also with Python bindings.
http://libdnet.sourceforge.net/
-bmw
Sin wrote:
I wasn't going to ask before, but I guess curiosity got the best of
me. I've been working for an ISP for the past 8 years, so PPP and SLIP
talk comes up alot. I don't usually post, just read, however I am
curious about what kind of application could possibly be using slip as
oppos
David Leimbach wrote:
x86 machine with FreeBSD 6 and using
if_bridge to connect the tap0 interface with xl0 with great success.
I tried to duplicate this configuration on a dual opteron machine that has
Broadcom adapters and when I add the bge0 or bge1 interfaces to the bridge0
iface that I cre
Bruce Walker wrote:
[if_bridge trouble with] two Intel Ether Express Pro/1000 interfaces.
Previously, I was fiddling with if_bridge bridging in a box (HP VLi8)
with the built-in 3Com i/f (xl0) and an add-in PRO/1000 card (em0).
That worked great. So I have now duplicated that config in a
Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 12:19:05PM -0500, Bruce Walker wrote:
As soon as I boot up with em0 and em1 added to the bridge0 interface, I
lose IP connectivity. Interestingly, I can ping hosts by IP address.
But all attempts to do anything else, eg NTP, DNS or ssh are
Fredrik Lindberg wrote:
mDNSResponder-108 appears to still be under APSL 2, I don't
know if that license is acceptable for base utilities, if it is, it
might be a viable alternative.
It should be under the Apache 2.0 license now.
Here's the announcement from the bonjour-dev list ...
Re the ZeroConf/Bonjour/IPv4LL chat: this just in ...
Original Message
Subject:New Bonjour Internet Drafts posted
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:20:23 -0700
From: Marc Krochmal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
Today we submitted the latest version
