Consider the following:
ifconfig em0 inet 1.2.3.4/24
ping 1.2.3.4
Then a tcpdump on lo0 shows:
21:15:56.641571 IP 127.0.0.1 > 1.2.3.4: ICMP echo request, id 36105, seq 10,
length 64
21:15:56.641582 IP 1.2.3.4 > 127.0.0.1: ICMP echo reply, id 36105, seq 10,
length 64
I think that the address u
What is the best way to be able to have a FreeBSD system connect
via 802.1x to a wired network? Wap_supplicant seems to insist on
calling 80211 ioctl's and thus fails.
I found the open1x project, but did not find it in the ports tree.
This suggests that perhaps there is a native solution after al
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:11:05AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:05:31PM +0200, Guido van Rooij wrote:
>>> What is the best way to be able to have a FreeBSD system connect
>>> via 802.1x to a wired network? Wap_su
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 09:58:31PM +0200, Guido van Rooij wrote:
>
> wpa_supplicant send a EAPOL start (version 1, type start)
> procurve sends EAP failure (version 1, type: eap packet (code failure, id: 2)
> procurve send EAP request identify (veersion 1, type: eap packet (code
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 01:43:07PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
>
> I believe it's done w/ bpf and the important change for wired support was
> to accept mcast frames from the PAE mcast address. Like I said to you
> privately; you might try this on releng7 where it was tested by someone.
I debuge
I am having problems combining ipf's ipnat rules with dummynet. The
reason is that if I use dummmynet queues configured to
be used outbound (queue out xmit if), then ipnat starts
applying rewriting of RDR rules on the wrong interface.
e.g.:
firewall has 2 interfaces: if0 and if1
if i say:
rd
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 03:02:17PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> Hi Guido,
>
> this is a known problem on RELENG_4, there is an existing patch [1] for
> this in the PR database.
>
> Which version of FreeBSD are you using ? I don't know if this problem
> has been corrected in RELENG_5.
It
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 03:08:30PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Which version of FreeBSD do you run? Rev 1.75 of ip_dummynet.c is
> relatively old.
5.2.1-RELEASE-p8
>
> The problem you are having is not that dummynet is saving the ifp (it
> needs that for bridged packets) but that it is usin
It seems that the netmask is ignored on loopback type devices.
Especially with the discard device this is annoying.
If one has a discard interface with the following settings:
disc0: flags=8009 mtu 65532
inet 10.100.100.1 netmask 0xff00
only 10.100.100.1 is sent to the discard device.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:43:01PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
>
> Sorry, can't help with that, but if you don't need VRRP but a working
> redundancy setup, you should look at CARP which is part of 6-CURRENT and
> 5-STABLE since a couple of weeks and will be part of 5.4-RELEASE.
>
> http://www.Free
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:21:40PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> G>
> G> Just read the manpage and I have one question: the manpage does not sepcify
> G> the default advskew value, just that 100 is slightly larger.
> G> Furthermore, the advskew, pass and other ifconfig options are not
> G> (yet) d
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 03:51:14PM +0300, Victor Gamov wrote:
>
> So, I assume 12.1 have some problem with IGMP
>
I also have problems with igmpproxy and multicast based TV.
I have enabled quickleave, but when I go to another channel I do not
see an IGMP leave.
The same setup worked flawlessly
fp
0xf8000f4d6000(vlan4)
Nov 20 19:15:30 igmp_v3_enqueue_group_record: nothing to do for 0xe000fc7e/vlan4
Nov 20 19:15:30 igmp_v3_enqueue_group_record: queueing MODE_EX for
0xe000fc7e/vlan4
I am somewhat lost on how to further debug this. Any hint would be ap
I wonder if it is possible to send raw ethernet packets somehow in FreeBSD.
E.g. using a AF_LINK, SOCK_RAW socket or something.
-Guido
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Guido van Rooij wrote:
>
> > I wonder if it is possible to send raw ethernet packets somehow in FreeBSD.
> > E.g. using a AF_LINK, SOCK_RAW socket or something.
>
> man 4 bpf
Eh..._sen
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 11:00:11AM +0100, Guido van Rooij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 10:57:57AM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Guido van Rooij wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if it is possible to send raw ethernet packets somehow in FreeBSD.
&g
I wonder if it possible to have 8255{7,9} based boards generate an
interrupt on media changes? If so: how? (I couldn't find it in the
public Linux driver Intel provides).
-Guido
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
I have a wireless basestation that translates ip packets using RC894
encapsulation into IEEE802.2/802.3 encapsulation (RFC1042).
Yes..I think that is gross too, but nevertheless I;d like to
get it to work.
THe host requirements RFC states that a host SHOULD be able to receive
RFC894 packets. Cur
I am using Ipsec in tunnel mode. Everything works okay. Then I decide
to flush my SAD entries, on _one_ side of the tunnel.
Naturally, I see a key exchange going on.
Afterwards I see that the system on which I flushed the SAD entries does
have new ones. However the other side of the tunnel is stil
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:22:35PM -0700, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:00:15PM +0200, Guido van Rooij wrote:
> > I am using Ipsec in tunnel mode. Everything works okay. Then I decide
> > to flush my SAD entries, on _one_ side of the tunnel.
> > N
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 02:21:50PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H?(B wrote:
>
> Please clarify, are you using automatic key negotiation (e.g. using
> IKE), or are you manually configuring the keys? The situation may
> differ according to the configuration.
Manual keys.
-Guido
To Unsubscri
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 08:20:53PM -0700, Crist J. Clark wrote:
> >
> > Why? Because if one system reboots, the key is gone so there is no way
> > to decrypt the incoming traffic any more?
>
> "The key?" What key? Again, each direction is independent from the
> other. Different keys will be used
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:47:48PM +0900, Shoichi Sakane wrote:
> the freebsd's ipsec stack always uses old SA when there are some SAs for
> the communication. so the other side system used old SA even when the one
> had new SA.
> latest KAME has the flag, net.key.prefered_oldsa, which makes the
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 07:29:27PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:22:05PM +0500, Dingo wrote:
> > ipfilters ipnat We ran into the IPSec intercept problem with 4.3,
> > can you tell me when the changes were MFCd ? it might just be a matter
> > of updateing Ipfilter on
I have a firewall system that has a dedicated interface on which nly
IPsec traffic is going out and comming in. The firewall
encrypts and decrypts these packets.
I am using Ipfilter on that system and I would like to filter on
the unencrypted content, both incoming and outgoing.
The problem is
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 06:34:29AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I have done similar to this using teh GIF interface.
>
> Each tunnel between sites had a gif interface and I firewalled
> for only ESP packets to and from the correct machines on the external
> interface, and for correct packets f
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but I'm looking for a cheap vlan switch.
Anyone with a suggestion?
-Guido
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:34:18PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
>round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.022/3.428/5.029/0.801 ms
># ping 207.172.3.8<<< one of isp's name server
>PING 207.172.3.8 (207.172.3.8): 56 data bytes
>ping: sendto: Host is down
>p
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:51:46AM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> So what you are saying is that with the:
>route add -net default -iface -interface xl0
> command the system thinks there is a direct connect. Doesn't this
> then send all packets out, since there is no address supplied with
>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:07:26PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> Quite frankly, blunt is not a problem, one needs to call them as one sees
> them. However, responding to a question with a condesending, superior
> attitude(IMHO), while ignoring the question is. As for "just try what
> people
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:39PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
>
> Of the 3 different possibilities mentioned:
>
> I did try route add -net without -iface, and the result was
> no route to host.
>
> I didn't try to arp to 207.172.3.* hosts because that sounded like
> a fix for only one small
Why don't we just start all over again.
IIRC this is his situation:
1) Local LAN 10.0.0.0/8
2) gateway on that LAN: 10.17.47.37
3) Host X on the LAN that should have an 209.122.66.XXX IP address.
I assume here that he controls the 10.17.47.37 gateway.
This is what he should do:
# give host IP a
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:13:18AM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> > IIRC this is his situation:
> > 1) Local LAN 10.0.0.0/8
> > 2) gateway on that LAN: 10.17.47.37
> > 3) Host X on the LAN that should have an 209.122.66.XXX IP address.
> >
> > I assume here that he controls the 10.17.47.37
33 matches
Mail list logo
