if_bridge stops when running virtualbox 4.1.8

5 priority 128 path cost 200 member: em0 flags=143 ifmaxaddr 0 port 1 priority 128 path cost 2 vboxnet0: flags=8802 metric 0 mtu 1500 ether 0a:00:27:00:00:00 Thanks! Paul Schenkeveld ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org ma

Re: Multiroute question

ose and is quite clean IMO. It's also not necessary to run multiple server processes (like sshd, sendmail, httpd) for every routing domain. With kind regards, Paul Schenkeveld ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/li

Carp seems completely broken on 8.2-RC2 and 8.2-PRERELEASE

ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 70: (tos 0x10, ttl 255, id 61479, offset 0, flags [DF], proto VRRP (112), length 56) 10.4.0.2 > 224.0.0.18: VRRPv2, Advertisement, vrid 104, prio 0, authtype none, intvl 1s, length 36,

Re: Carp seems completely broken on 8.2-RC2 and 8.2-PRERELEASE

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 01:05:31PM +0100, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > > > There is an ARP request which is replied to by the carp master (test). > > the ping to the carp address does not even appear on the sis

sis(4) broken on 8.2 [Re: Carp seems completely broken on 8.2-RC2 and 8.2-PRERELEASE]

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > Hi, > > Trying to upgrade two Soekris firewalls to 8-STABLE or 8.2-PRERELEASE > it appears that carp doesn't work at all. I've set up carp like I've > done on many firewall pairs before and

Re: sis(4) broken on 8.2 [Re: Carp seems completely broken on 8.2-RC2 and 8.2-PRERELEASE]

Your second patch is on my production firewalls now so if anthing comes up over the coming days I'll keep you informed. I've tested carp, both failover to backup and fallback (preemption) with IPv4 and with IPv6, all seems to work now. Thannks again for your patches, hope you can get them

rtadvd and carp

0 is my virtual interface. If I enable rtadvd on sis0 on both firewalls I see they both advertise the autoconf address of sis0 as the default gateway. I'd like the IPv6 address of carp0 to be advertised, can rtadvd do that or should I go for an IPv6 enable DHCP server? Thank

Multiple IPv6 ISPs

ow do other people solve this? I need to run services on both address ranges so flipping a default gateway when pinging the next hop fails does not solve it for me. Soon, having IPv6 is no longer an option but rather a necessity. Regards, Paul Schenk

Bridging wlan to gif?

X and receive a DHCP address from a DHCP server (not shown) on LAN X - On the access point wlan0 and gif0 are bridged together - On the gateway fxp1 and gif0 are bridged together - Gif0 on the access point and gif0 on the gateway communicate correctly when given IP addresses Regards,

Re: Using netgraph for filtering/modifing packets

conversation between the client and the server, you probably don't want to drop or alter packets at the network level or you'd have to recalculate sequence numbers and checksums. To modify the client-server conversation (e.g. to see if evil clients can hack your

Re: spoofed MAC on a dhcp interface

, so I have to > stop dhclient, run "ifconfig ether 00:11:11:11:11:11" manually, then > dhcp again. > > Thanks! > -Charlie $0.02 Regards, Paul Schenkeveld, Consultant PSconsult ICT Services BV ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing li

Re: question on tunnels (VPN)

including TCP and UDP (but also raw IP, serial lines, ssh tunnels ...). Tunnel endpoints are tunN devices. It has built in encryption (openssl) en compression (lzo, zlib and even a traffic shaper. > regards, > M. HTH Paul Schenkeveld, Consultant PSconsult ICT Services BV ___

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

ts, the IPsec code would need to > go through the configured enc interfaces, and find one > where the source address would match... > > Now, all this has one not-so-good design aspect: in a way > you need to configure the tunnel twice: once the enc > interface, IP addresses and routing

Re: IPsec / ipfw interaction in 4.7-STABLE: a proposed change

On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 01:36:28PM +0200, Pekka Nikander wrote: > Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > > Because of the way IPsec and ipfw/ipfilter interact, I've > > moved to the following workaround: > ... > > Now I use transport mode instead of tunnel mode between the

Re: Source Routing

t week and post it here. Regards, Paul Schenkeveld, Consultant PSconsult ICT Services BV > Thanks > AFShhin > > > --- Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:25:46AM -0800, afshin > > wrote: > > > > > > &g

Re: Strange routing configuration problem

; router_enable ="YES" > > Even this did not help at all. I dont know where I am doing a mistake. > There is something that needs to be filled in. > Can anyone please help me here. > I am stuck in this for days. > > Regards > sandeep Regards, Paul Schenkevel

Re: do we support non contiguous netmasks ?

ut we move to 65 static routes up from 2). Greetings, Paul Schenkeveld, Consultant PSconsult ICT Services BV ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"