n show specific behaviors in a tcpdump that you're interested in,
I'm sure that many people would be willing to help answer your questions.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
reciver, tcpdump reported
> drops and some packets seem to have been dropped...
You tend to drop less packets if you use tcpdump's -w option, then use -r
later.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
th Fast Retransmit
> earlier in Nov 2001 - that sender was resorting to
> the costly Retransmission timeout even after receiving
> many DupAcks.
Ok, I'll look at this in depth when I get some time.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with &q
er space available" problems due to the ep
driver. It has been commmitted to -current, but not -stable as of yet. I
suspect Warner will MFC the change in a few days. In the meantime, you
could try manually applying this diff to your system:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys
I believe that
someone was looking into that. If he manages to find the bottleneck and
fix it, I suspect you'll see the announcement here.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
n out of mbuf clusters that one time may very well
also run you out of mbuf clusters even at MAXUSERS=96; mbuf clusters tend
to get eaten pretty quickly.
Either way, adding ram sounds like a good idea. :)
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
sults,
that would be highly helpful in getting it on the road to being committed.
Unadvocated patches ususally don't get committed.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
en't checked in detail) they are a no-go
> unless someone puts significant work on them.
>
> cheers
> luigi
Whee! Ok, good to know.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
There have been patches to up the default buffer size and/or enable
features to work around the problem on certain chipsets, but everything
works well enough that I haven't been motivated to give them a serious
look.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
your system is quite busy. However, it's still not anything to
worry about.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
into /Store/Mp3 and
/Store/Filter... but, i cant read/write into /Store itself although i can
browse /Store, thus far all the literature ive read seems to say i shouldnt
be having this problem.
Any ideas ?
--
Mike Woods
WoA SE Webmonkey & General Dogsbody
Amiga North Thames Webmaster &
running a version of
FreeBSD that does not include Jonathan Lemon's syncache/syncookie
implementation. This was added just shortly before 4.5-release, and
should help your situation greatly.
If you are running 4.5, then I'm stumped.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
ue length (via a sysctl I've now
forgotten), or update to 4.5-stable.
If this is just a load test and not real usage, you could also ignore the
problem for now; you'll have to make the determination.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
5 (and current,
> for that matter).
>
> Greg
Which PRs describe the problems encountered?
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Greg Black wrote:
> Mike Silbersack wrote:
>
> | Which PRs describe the problems encountered?
>
> I have not submitted a PR yet. I have raised the problems on
> the FreeBSD mailing lists several times since 4.4-RELEASE and
> have had some correspond
ither case, you can then run "trace" to get a backtrace of where
the problem occured. From that, we should be able to help you.
If you can't even break into DDB whenever your computer crashes, then
something is seriously wrong, _probably_ bad hardware of some sort.
Mike "Silby&quo
the usable port range as mentioned above.
(For example, even with such code we'd still hit a limit when establishing
multiple connections to a single service on a single box, as is probably
done when benchmarking.)
Thanks,
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send
received this amazing stats:
>
> Current listen queue sizes (qlen/incqlen/maxqlen)
> Listen Local Address
> 193/0/128 216.65.107.31.81 (queue len >> queue maxlen) !!!
That's entirely expected, and the reason why is visible in the source.
Mike "Silby"
;re going through and UMAing everything, I think it'd be best if you
kept the limits the same for now.
Once everything's UMA'd, then we can develop new sizing parameters.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
ion below the current value; right now
sockets > maxfiles with large maxuser values. Whether or not this is a
necessary differential, I'm not sure. (With TIME_WAIT and FIN_WAIT_2
sockets, I believe that maxsockets should exceed maxfiles.)
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe:
cvsup'd in the last two weeks, so I have yet to play
around with UMA. I was going to ask some more questions here, but it's
probably best that I actually look at the code first. :)
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Hi,
Can an unnumbered IP interface be configured on FreeBSD (4.5-Stable)?
Will Zebra and/or GateD (or RouteD) handle it properly?
Thanks,
MikeC
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
with it.
Thanks again,
MikeC
-Original Message-
From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 4:05 PM
To: Cambria, Mike
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:Re: Unnumbered IP Interface
Unnumbered interfaces are not supported offi
pps would
always have free files available, even once sockets were depleted. In
short, I think that it's advantageous having seperate limits, given that
doing so is easy.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
ocator the benefits would be huge. Have you
discussed doing this with Bosko yet?
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
functionality.
>
> --
> Bosko Milekic
Expanding is good, contracting is better. :)
Whatever rate you want to do the switchover at would be best; I don't see
any urgent need to rush the work.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
bs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:19 AM
To: Julian Elischer
Cc: Cambria, Mike; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject:Re: Unnumbered IP Interface
Julian Elischer writes:
> A while ago it was possible to use 'route' to add a rout eto a p2p
> interf
d wanted to get some hints. For
example, Archie's answer for unnumbered interfaces isn't in the route
manpage. I'm glad I asked.
MikeC
-Original Message-
From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:49 PM
To: Cambria, M
today's computers
on today's networks. At the same time, the reality of 32 bit sequence
numbers being relatively small and timestamps being needed to track
wraparound is setting in. Although we don't use the various rfc 1323
options to their full extent yet, keeping them enabled is a
, you're best off
spending time upgrading to RELENG_4_5.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
ing to not accept() all
connections ASAP, a backlog will build up, and RSTs will be sent to
incoming connections. This should be true under 4.4 or 4.5.
The listen manpage looks to be pretty accurate in its description.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
behavior in 4.4, and the syncache isn't a queue.) Maybe I can word that
better when I go through and make sure all the comments in the source are
up to date.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
yn cookie is returned, or the syn is silently
dropped (depending on whether or not syn cookies are enabled.) With the
pre-syncache code, yes, a RST was sent at that time.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
, sendmail) do
it? Would that behavior be defeated with your proposed changes?
I'm not opposed to your idea, I'd just like to fully understand the
implications before any changes are made.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
ead and make the changes that Bill proposes, it should be
possible to add a sysctl that would cause a RST to be emitted rather
than the connection to be returned to the syncache.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
gnoring the ACK and waiting for it to be
retransmitted is the better idea. After that is done, adding a sysctl
which enables the RST functionality wouldn't be a problem if you think
that it may be beneficial for those using load balancers.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: se
igured"
> I don't have trouble to issue command "ifconfig nge0 media 1000baseTX
> mediaopt full-duplex".
>
This I can help you with. the correct way of doing it is disabling
full-duplex:
# iconfig nge0 media 1000baseTX -mediaopt full-duplex
cheers,
Mike
ld
uniquely identify a socket. (It wouldn't be nice to kill the wrong socket
because they switched out from under you.)
Maybe a procfs like filesystem for sockets would be better. :)
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
e
lines for a while), but I'd be more than happy to defer to some unknown
lurker on the mailing list who wants to make a name for his/her self. :)
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
ould be a pre-computed (global) scaling
> factor as well.
>
> -GAWollman
I looked over both our and Linux's tcp stack to double-check, and it
appears that my memory was faulty. You are correct, no PAWS checks are
done during TIME_WAIT recycling. Initializing to zero is probably t
make a patch for -current.
Personally, I hope we keep ECN support out of the tree; it's unlikely to
provide any benefit over the internet in general, and will just make
integrating other TCP changes more difficult.
I haven't looked over the ALTQ patches, but integration of those changes
so
to commit such a feature if it was implemented well; other people
with busy servers might find it useful.
I've been pondering various methods to handle out of mbuf cluster
situations better, but handling your case seems especially difficult.
I'll have to think more.
Mike "Silby"
MTRG in conjunction with snmpd. It will gather the data you require. Also,
you can safely run SNMPD as a non root user for this purpose and I strongly
advise that. Both programs are in the ports tree.
---Mike
On Tue, 21 May 2002 14:58:22 +0300, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you wrote
problem. Do a complete buildworld first so
you really do update to 4.6 and try again.
---Mike
Mike Tancsa ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sentex Communications Corp,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
"Given enough time, 100 monkeys on 100 routers
could setup a national IP
, OSPF packets
start appears on gif5 interface, and so on...
I could provide more useful information, if required.
What is wrong with my zebra configuration?
Thanks in advance for any help...
Regards,
Mike
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
t; Andre
Sure, I'll take a look at in the next day or two.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
e);
> + printf("%6ld %8lu ", rt->rt_refcnt, rt->rt_use);
Also committed and slated for MFC.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
by 48 bytes. On a default free view of the Internet this
> gives us a whopping 5.5 Mbytes in kernel memory savings (110k routes).
>
> --
> Andre
Hrm. Once you've cut the route metrics out of the route entries, is there
anything preventing you from doing away with cloned routes alltog
e. What I'm thinking of
doing is renaming the field to rt_unused with a comment indicating that it
should be axed if anyone else has a good reason to change the structure.
I'll look over your latest round of patches tomorrow. They're a bit more
in depth, I can't evaluate t
Accept filters act oddly on
4.5-release, you'll have to upgrade to 4.5-stable/4.6.
3. Could you use tcpdump to determine what exactly is going wrong and
post a url to the log so that we can investigate what is going wrong?
Thanks,
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, jayanth wrote:
> Can you dump the output of netstat -s -p tcp ?
> Checking for listen queue overflows and syncache bucket overflows.
>
> jayanth
And "netstat -La" too, please. I'm interested in if you're accepting
sockets fast enoug
has run out of sockets. Is kern.ipc.numopensockets approaching
kern.ipc.maxsockets?
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
wever, it's too late to MFC it in time for 4.6-release.
Phil: In the future, please try a bit harder to notify someone if you
believe that a bug is serious enough for posting to bugtraq. freebsd-net
is a relatively busy list, and things do get missed.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
On T
So, if you do find a security issue in the future, please directly e-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] so that it gets handled properly. If you
find less serious bugs, feel free to drop me an e-mail if mail to the -net
list falls on deaf ears.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Phil Dibowitz wrote:
> Glad it's fixed, and thanks for the info.
>
>
> Phil
Well, it's not fixed yet, but it will be. (Probably a week at least, I
don't have the time to devote to it right now, despite it being a simple
change.)
Mike "Si
sent relates to the the ip_id
field. I noticed that linux has moved to setting 0 in the ip_id field for
all packets with DF set. This sounds like a good way to go for me, as
it's a lot cheaper than some randomization scheme. However, if we don't
set DF on syn-ack packets but do on o
on the resend, would that be acceptable?
/me has this bad feeling that he just roped himself into auditing the PTMU
code.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
1 mppe
deny deflate pred1 mppe
set authname [EMAIL PROTECTED]
set authkey thepassword
set ifaddr 10.0.0.1/0 10.0.0.2/0 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.0
add default HISADDR
---Mike
----
Mike Tancsa,
Hi,
the mss fixup is enabled by default and is part of the stock PPP from what
I understand. Also, this was all working just great when the other end was
a redback. The problems only started when the telco moved the termination
to the ERX.
---Mike
At 04:34 PM 18/06/2002 -0500
-endpoint and then connect again with the client...
ifconfig tun0 on the client side does indeed show the MTU specified in the
virt-template.
---Mike
At 03:09 PM 6/18/2002 -0700, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> Well, if you need to find the MTU, the ppp logs should tell you what the
>remote
Yes, that did it! Thanks very much! What is different about that, and me
setting it on the other end as part of the virt-template ?
---Mike
At 12:33 AM 6/19/2002 +0100, Brian Somers wrote:
>Perhaps adding
>
> set mtu max 1452
>
>will help ?
>
>On Tue, 18 Ju
s suggestion of set max mtu did the trick. I am
curious to know why this is necessary on the ERX and not on the SMSes.
---Mike
----
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications,
Actually, I spoke too soon. The host I was testing against was the wrong
one :( Its still broken with the
set mtu max 1452
statement.
---Mike
At 05:16 PM 6/18/2002 -0700, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> Possibly. There is a PPPoE session to the Redback (or ERX), then
>usually
Actually, in your documentation you mention that its broken for the
situation where the FreeBSD box acts as a gateway. In my case, its broken
right from the FreeBSD box. But the same machine connected with Windows 98
does not have the problem.
---Mike
At 04:18 PM 6/18/2002 -0700
1898183196:1898183196(0) win 57344 (DF)
23:21:45.498440 204.152.184.112.80 > 64.7.134.131.1030: S
1924929184:1924929184(0) ack 1898183197 win 61440
and the speed is a few hundred bytes /s
But, when I do the same from my connection at home, I see the same sorts of
flags and speeds are as expe
love to help, but I'm busy with other matters at
the moment.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
lain to the manufacture is that it
works with
Windows 95,98, XP, 2000, Linux and a Cisco 827.
It does not work with
FreeBSD
---Mike
Mike Tancsa ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Sentex Communications Corp,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
"Given enough time, 100 monkeys on 100 routers
could se
ge shared by multiple processes? Will the page be shared? That could
be a big reduction in mbuf cluster usage on some http/ftp systems, I'd
guess.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:17:03 -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> >
> > > I'm planning on checking in the zero copy sockets code Tuesday evening,
> > > MDT. If
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > Cool, thttpd / others should benefit greatly then.
>
> The last time I checked thttpd didn't even use sendfile(2). It does
> use accf_http(9). Maybe kqueue(2) could speed it up further.
>
&g
the interface MTU.
---Mike
At 09:49 PM 24/06/2002 +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>Mike Tancsa wrote:
>Re DSL ...
>
> > (Note, I have tried various MTU and MRU settings.
> > Thanks for any pointers.
>
>Perhaps you need /usr/ports/net/tcpmssd
> - T
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:54:32 -0700 (PDT), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:53:32 -0700 (PDT), in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you
>> wrote:
>> >> After spending a couple of hours gettin
o it no problem.
---Mike
----
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400
Sentex Communications,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing Internet since 1994www.sente
At 11:37 PM 24/06/2002 -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> > >
> > >It seems hard to understand how the pppoe node in the kernel can slow
> > >things down.
> >
> > Here is an example
> >
>
>I wasn;
In short, VJ-Header Compression! Why, I dont know. The exact same config
works agains the SMSes by Redback. But not the Unisphere ERX
Here is what I did to get it to all work.
a) On my radius server, I had to get rid of
Framed-Compression = Van-Jacobsen-TCP-IP
b) On the FreeBSD box, I had
them with Unisphere's ERX
boxes.
The solution I found was to make sure that its also disabled and not
offered in RADIUS either, so you might have to talk to your ISP if they
have it configured, as we did.
---Mike
***
Knowledge Database - Search Results
Kno
ually, you usually use most of your mbuf (clusters) for sending, not
receiving. Hence, sendspace is what you may wish to kick down in order to
reduce usage.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
ment
pppstats works for me
cage# pppstats
IN PACK VJCOMP VJUNC VJERR | OUT PACK VJCOMP VJUNC NON-VJ
0 0 0 0 0 |0 0 0 0 0
cage#
---Mike
to this approach. If the card never locks up, then the change is
superfluous. When it does, the change is a lifesaver.
Apologies if parts of this message sound like babbling; I should be
sleeping at this moment in time. :)
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
retransmitting.
>
> What collective wisdom do folks have about this?
>
>
> Tom Pavel
I'm not sure doubling the "RST window" is a good idea. With window sizes
increasing as they are, that could become a significant issue as time goes
on. How about one MSS worth of win
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Tom Pavel wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Mike Silbersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > 09:05:36.961787 AA.80 > BB.61390: . 3568529946:3568531406(1460) ack 2597111
> > 261 win 4380 (DF)
> > > 09:05:38.9
aving
> 28 bytes per socket on i386, and probably nearly double that on
> any 64 bit platform. That's ~15%, which isn't too shabby.
Unions are ooogly. Would it be possible to seperate listen-only
structures out into a seperate struct instead with a pointer to it?
Mike "Silby&q
mpletely work I haven't proved it. :)
>
>
> --
> -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Well, if it's not working I wouldn't worry too much about it. A TIME_WAIT
cache or socket buffer autosizing would probably save a lot more memory.
:)
Mike "Silby" Silb
urn motivated me enough to try something I've
> been meaning to try. :)
>
> --
> -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Yes, it's amazing what competition will do to productivity. I may
actually start getting things done again. :)
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > * Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020707 21:48] wrote:
> > >
> > > I do have a smaller TIME_WAIT structure done; it even throws the socket
> > >
have been due to misbehaving duplex autodetect and
bad cables.)
Offhand, I can't see what the FreeBSD box is doing wrong, but I'd like
something else to compare to.
Thanks,
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Lemon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >
> >My guess is that doing hw checksum by the nic could be the
> issue. This is
> >the only real difference I can see at present.
> >
> >Any ideas?
>
> Test your theory. Turn off hardware checksums with 'ifcon
> #define XL905B_CSUM_FEATURES0
This worked. dsniff is behaving just fine now.
Next I'll try to track down if this is this a libnet problem, libnids
problem or dsniff problem, so I know which project I need to inform.
Thanks,
MikeC
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew R. Reiter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> :Next I'll try to track down if this is this a libnet problem, libnids
> :problem or dsniff problem, so I know which project I need to inform.
>
> IIRC, the problem is BPF b/c it doesn't know the checksum since the
to a
different netgraph interface each time.
Specifically, how do I add n routes to user X's connection on demand. Is
it possible with mpd ?
---Mike
Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651
or
timestamps of the other packets in the stream. On top of that, I see no
reason why a win 0 should be sent when the previous window was ~24K in
size. Is it possible that the NAT box is adding it in?
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
e
delayed ack code isn't causing the problem somehow?
Also, is C really a FreeBSD box? I didn't think we used window sizes
of 24K.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
stack to account
for Solaris... which I'm sure would cause problems with _everything_ else.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Also, is C really a FreeBSD box? I didn't think we used window sizes
> > > of 24K.
> >
> > No C is Solaris
> > A and B are FreeBS
.
Problem found by Yoshihiro Tsuchiya ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Submitted by: Jayanth Vijayaraghavan
Apply that to host B and see if it helps.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
n. You should drop him an e-mail to see if what he has
developed so far will be helpful to your case.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
more than 10 or so fragments? Also, will overlapping
fragments really ever be seen, or can we just assume that's a sign of
abuse?
Sorry for the sudden change of direction for this thread, I've been
pondering how to improve our resistance to mbuf exhaustion through ip
frags.
Mike "Si
Hi,
I've been running FreeBSD on 2 boxes, each with their own WAN links for over
18 months
or so. Each box has its own WAN link (one uses T1 leased line to a remote
site, the other
uses DSL to an ISP.) The ISP link runs IPsec and racoon The other end of
the IPsec
tunnel is a VPN appliance.
10ms every second until I recently
committed Harti Brandt's changes to -current. Now it "only" takes 1ms,
which is still too long, but hard to reduce further. The MFC will have to
wait until after 4.7-release is tagged, unfortunately.
Mike "Silby" Silbersack
T
accounting is entirely accurate, so
I'm going to postulate that the firewall itself could actually be the
dominant consumer of CPU time. Are you using ipfw? If so, have you tried
out Luigi's new IPFW2? It was MFC'd to 4.6-stable, and is supposed to be
more efficient.
Mike "
701 - 800 of 1032 matches
Mail list logo
