-On [20010103 06:00], C. Stephen Gunn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:02:20 MST, Wes Peters wrote:
>
>> Sure, but it would be nice to take over ARP too.
>
>FWIW. Jeoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was looking at the NetBSD
>media-independant arp code. I'm not sure what he learned.
I
-On [20010209 02:00], Luigi Rizzo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>and maybe it would be the case to remove the first block and the
>conditionals on the second one. I don't think we plan a port to the
>vax, am i wrong ?
Personally I'd be happier if this got removed. We don't intend to port
to VAX, an
Speaking of dead code:
sys/netinet/tcpip.h:
struct full_tcpiphdr{} appears to not be used. It was added in 1995 for
some T/TCP stuff.
Anyone know if this is used outside of our sources?
ipfilter seemingly defines its own version of it in the contrib
directory, but it also doesn't use it. :P
-On [20010216 16:00], Dan Debertin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>flags=8c43 mtu 1500
OK, so it is setting the output active flag and quite possibly never
returns from that state.
Hmmm, if you don't do an ifconfig down/up or just up it won't come back,
right? I mean, you can sit it there for days
[Bill Paul and Matthew Dodd cc:'d.
Sorry for this intrusion guys, but I just want you opinions on some of
the blabbering I exclaim]
-On [20010218 21:37], Dan Debertin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
>
>> -On [20010216 16:00], Dan
-On [20010209 12:00], Andrea Venturoli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>** Reply to note from Clark Gaylord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:46:06 -0500
>
>> It used to be the case that mediaopt half-duplex worked. It stopped
>> working at some point (I don't recall exactly when ... somewher
-On [20010212 00:30], Rogier R. Mulhuijzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>There's a IEEE standard these days for link aggregation. 802.3AD if I'm not
>mistaken. When my workload at work lightens up I'll be spending time on this.
You are correct.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok vd Werven/Asmodaiasmodai@[wxs
-On [20010301 17:24], Hajimu UMEMOTO ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2001 13:53:39 -0600
>> Kirk Strauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>kirk> I want this machine to be a IPv6 gateway for the other machines
>kirk> on my LAN, too.
>
>Since Freenet6 serve only one host address, it is imp
Hi Yu-Shun,
-On [20010308 22:05], Yu-Shun Wang ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Has the topic of Strong/Weak ES model been discussed here?
> Please give me a pointer if the topic has been debated.
In what sense discussed? What type we are? What we support?
> I was wondering if t
-On [20010308 22:02], Rafael Tonin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I'm having some problems on configuring my just purchased Intel PRO/100+ PCI
>(reported by Intel as being P#: 689661-004).
>
>When booting, FreeBSD 4.2 reports:
>
>fxp0: at device 13.0 on pci0
>fxp0: could not map memory
You might w
-On [20010316 06:25], Mohana Krishna Penumetcha ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>16:41:25.623476 arp who-has 0.0.0.0 tell 10.0.36.130
>16:41:30.639372 arp who-has 0.0.0.0 tell 10.0.36.130
>16:41:40.649838 arp who-has 0.0.0.0 tell 10.0.36.130
>16:41:45.631430 arp who-has 0.0.0.0 tell 10.0.36.130
>16:41:
-On [20010314 18:30], Garrett Wollman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>< said:
>> +in_addr_tinet_lnaof __P((struct in_addr));
>> +struct in_addr inet_makeaddr __P((in_addr_t, in_addr_t));
>> +in_addr_tinet_netof __P((struct in_addr));
>
>If anything, these interfaces should be removed.
T
-On [20010316 10:43], Eugene Polovnikov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Please, review the following PR:
>http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=25847
>
>Same patch is in the attach.
Just a question,
the gif interface now part of the system does tunneling as well in as
much the same way as nos-
-On [20010310 04:00], Nick Rogness ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>Is anyone working on route caching functionality within FreeBSD? This
>would eliminate a lot of problems with using FreeBSD as a router...which
>seems to be a common role of which FreeBSD seems to fit. Especially for
>machine that
-On [20010309 12:00], Matthew N. Dodd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Interested parties will also note that tcpdump is unable to properly
>decode IPX packets over token ring; I've got a fix for this too...
Matthew,
am I correct in my assumption that all fixes needed for tcpdump can be
handled in ou
-On [20010316 12:45], Ruslan Ermilov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 10:50:26AM +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
>> -On [20010316 10:43], Eugene Polovnikov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[gif versus nos-tun]
>Yes, gif(4) works the same way, and multihomed
-On [20010320 04:00], Josef Karthauser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[local gnats]
>I do it just in case I need access to a PR. It's come in handy having
>it lying around.
Same here, and that coupled with X and tkgnats, lub it.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai .oUo. asmodai@[wxs.nl|free
[This question is more appropriate for -net IMHO]
-On [20010322 03:00], David E. Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>I recently tried (for the first time) to get gif running under FreeBSD
>4.3-BETA (cvsup-ed yesterday). I noticed the following:
>
>gifconfig gif0 inet 10.1.1.1 10.1.2.1
>ifconfig gi
-On [20010322 21:08], Hajimu UMEMOTO ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Since routing info to ::1 is allocated in IPv6 case, I think it should
>be alloacated to 127.0.0.1 also in IPv4 case.
Seems to make sense, since a lot of the tunnels will be IPv4 ones as
well.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmo
[making sure Jesper and Jonathan see this]
-On [20010326 18:00], Bill Fenner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Now that an ICMP port unreachable returns ENETRESET and not ECONNREFUSED,
>setting the date on the command line results in a bogusly-reported error.
>Before you fix the bug in date/netdate.c,
-On [20010806 11:30], Makoto MATSUSHITA ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>matusita> 1) nsupdate can't read keyfile
>
>I've got a reply from [EMAIL PROTECTED] that this is a bug[1] in
>8.2.4; current 8.2.5-T1A and 8.3.0-T1A is already fixed.
I hope to import a fix today, taken from the above release.
-On [20010808 16:30], Mike Tancsa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>Just wondering, is there a reason why the MTU of the gif interface defaults
>to 1280 ? Why not 1500 ?
Per RFC2460:
"IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an MTU of 1280
octets or greater. On any link that cannot conv
-On [20010808 18:51], Mike Tancsa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>Thanks for the clarification. I just had a read of the man pages as well
>and there is mention of that too. I guess the question I am left with is
>that can I safely set the MTU to 1500 if I am using it to tunnel IPV4
>traffic on
-On [20010923 11:38], Matthew N. Dodd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>sys/net/if.c and bpf.c have problems with if_detach() and
>bpfdetach() when they are called with a struct ifnet that has not had
>if_attach() and bpfattach() called on it. Null pointer reference ->
>*boom* etc.
>
>This patch fixes
-On [20011102 02:30], Luigi Rizzo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Would people object to doing a similar change to the code
>in STABLE ?
No, I wouldn't mind.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|freebsd.org|xmach.org]
Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder, finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25 matches
Mail list logo
