On Wednesday, Oct 23, 2002, at 19:41 US/Pacific, Don Bowman wrote:
I have an application listening on an ipfw 'fwd' rule.
I'm sending ~3K new sessions per second to it. It
has to turn around and issue some of these out as
a proxy, in response to which some of them the destination
host won't exist
I have two systems connected through a common network (switch). They
each have two NICs, with one addressed on one IP network and the second
on another. IP works fine. My problem is that the kernel keeps
bitching about seeing the same MAC addresses on both interfaces:
Oct 26 06:15:03 babelfi
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 14:28 US/Pacific, Don Bowman wrote:
systcl net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_wrong_iface=0
Gee, why didn't that permutation of keystrokes occur to me? ;)
Thanks.
KeS
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the me
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 16:20 US/Pacific, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
Kevin Stevens wrote:
I have two systems connected through a common network (switch). They
each have two NICs, with one addressed on one IP network and the
second
on another. IP
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 20:24 US/Pacific, Julian Elischer wrote:
Don't get snooty..
the question is :"why do you want to do that?
Is it to get more bandwidth?
The answer is: None of your business. It was a simple technical
question, to which I was given a simple technical answer, which
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 21:36 US/Pacific, Don Bowman wrote:
This can also be seen, believe it or not, on a routed
network, if you have something like spanning tree
protocol which hasn't converged yet, but has been set
for rapid convergence (which assumes the path isn't
a loop until it disc
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 23:42 US/Pacific, Julian Elischer wrote:
As one of the people whio wrote lots of the code you are using I'm
trying to figure out why you are doing something that we never
designed it to do because "no-one would want to do that".
i.e. "Do we have to change any desi
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Ng Wee Yong wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just install the FreeBSD 4.6.2 - STABLE version. My motherboard is a MSI
> 845GE Max-L, 1.8Ghz Pentium 4, On-board LAN is Intel 82562.
>
> FreeBSD just work fine accept it cannot detect my On-Board Intel LAN. I
> build and install a custom KE
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
> > From: Ng Wee Yong [mailto:ngweeyong@;yahoo.com.sg]
> > I just install the FreeBSD 4.6.2 - STABLE version. My
> > motherboard is a MSI
> > 845GE Max-L, 1.8Ghz Pentium 4, On-board LAN is Intel 82562.
> >
> > FreeBSD just work fine accept it cannot detect my
>
> I was recently following a thread on tech-netbsd that was discussing the
> routing tables when the gateway address was on a 10.x.x.x network while
> the machine was assigned a 209.122.66.x address. The long and short of
> the discussion (as I understand the discussion) was that this was that
>
> Well it's not the way I wanted it, but it's the way I have to try and
> work with.
>
> I tried the route add net 10.0.0.0 -interface (whatever)
> and that didn't work for me.
That's not the syntax I gave you, and obviously it needs to have your
local interface information inserted. I can confi
>> The PowerBook returns invalid password (128bit wep Key entered in Hex)
>> supplied.
>
> Of course you've re-checked for typos. Aren't 26-character hex keys
> fun?
Did you use the required $ prefix in the Airport client WEP requester?
>> Has anybody had experience getting an AirportExtreme cli
> xl0: flags=8943 mtu 1500
> options=3
> inet 10.1.2.15 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.1.2.255
> inet 10.1.2.126 netmask 0x broadcast 10.1.2.126
> ether 00:00:5e:00:01:02
> media: Ethernet 10baseT/UTP (10baseT/UTP )
>
> I tried:
>
> ifconfig xl0 10.1
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> what kind of things go wrong if I'd put two ipv4 networks
> on a single ethernet link? eg., put 192.168.1/24 and 192.168.3/24
> on a single segment.
If you just mean on the same segment; nothing goes wrong. If you mean on
the same interface on a Free
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Alex wrote:
> I have a small home network with a PowerBook G4 and FBSD 4.9-STABLE
> connected through a Netgear DS108 hub (10/100). The FBSD box is a dual
> Xeon 500MHz with Intel Etherexpress 100/Pro (MS440GX motherboard). If
> for some reason it makes a difference, there is
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Charles Swiger wrote:
> If the device works at both 10 and 100 speed, it's a switch, not a hub.
It is sold as a hub. Most of these "dual-speed" hubs are/were two hubs,
one of each speed, with a two-port internal switch connecting them. The
physical ports would auto-join to
On Dec 16, 2003, at 17:32, Charles Swiger wrote:
On Dec 16, 2003, at 7:22 PM, Alex (ander Sendzimir) wrote:
[ ... ]
First, Barney was correct: using "ping -f" will run into the ICMP
response limitation. Try using "ping -i 0.01 _hostname_", instead,
and you may find out that you don't have a pro
On Dec 16, 2003, at 20:32, Bill Fumerola wrote:
I wish I had a FreeBSD box to check this on, but from an OS X G5 to an
Athlon WinXP box (both at 100% CPU from distribfolding client:
which is completely irrelevant because your winxp machine doesn't have
the aforementioned icmp response limiter.
Tha
I apologize to the list for my results not being germane to the
conversation. I can confirm that OS X also implements an ICMP
restriction (net.inet.icmp.icmplim) which similarly limits responses
(default is 250), and would account for the OP's results when testing
toward the PowerBook.
As for
19 matches
Mail list logo
