link state changed to UP
> bge0: link state changed to DOWN
> bge0: link state changed to UP
> bge0: link state changed to DOWN
> bge0: link state changed to UP
> -
>
> when i use a ping command it seem freezing, then after pr
Please include your question as email content, not subject.
http://serverfault.com/questions/361673/hp-nc107i-bcm5723-on-freebsd-9
Indicates
you may be able to set
hw.bge.allow_asf="0"
in /boot/loader.conf. Try this, and if the problem persists, please reply
with more information (FreeBSD versio
Surat Sodchuen
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Hello folks,
I have a machine that runs on a compact flash so I try to mount read-only as
much as possible, but when I need to do some maintainance I remount read-write
with
mount -u -w /
It works, but when I try to remount read only the prompt never get back using
mount -u -r /
and the ssh
Good morning,
I installed FreeBSD (9.1 i386) and OpenBSD (5.2 i386), and I found ping
result from directly attached Cisco switch to FreeBSD boxes were
intermittent. I test to ping to few other FreeBSD boxes, and still produce
the same result like below, regardless either using em or bce, or
I have a fairly restrictive firewall but I wanted to open a hole for ping and
traceroute - both outbound from a NATed LAN as well as inbound to the boundary
FreeBSD machine. The magic sauce turned out to be:
ipfw add allow icmp from any to any icmptypes 0,3,4,8,11,12
The other insight here
gt; But isn't that handled by setting:
>
>
> net.inet.icmp.drop_redirect=1
Yes, but generally clearer to allow what you want and drop the rest.
> > # This is the ICMP rule we generally use:
> > # ipfw add 10 allow icmp from any to any in icmptypes
> > 0,3,4,11,12,14,16,18
>
>
>
Hmmm I just tried this and it seems to break ping...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
t; >>
> >> It does work but, two questions:
> >>
> >> 1) Is there a better way?
> > Consider allowing only the ICMP that does things you want to do.
> > Google something like "icmp types to allow" for some hints and
> > opinions. Just
Здравствуйте, Tim.
Вы писали 2 декабря 2011 г., 1:25:04:
TD> I have a fairly restrictive ipfw setup on a FBSD 8.2-STABLE machine.
TD> Pings were not getting through so I added this near the top
TD> of the rule set:
TD>#
TD># Allow icmp
TD>#
TD>${FWCMD} add allow icmp fr
It does work but, two questions:
1) Is there a better way?
Consider allowing only the ICMP that does things you want to do. Google something like
"icmp types to allow" for some hints and opinions. Just as an example, you can
independently control being able to ping others and ot
there a better way?
Consider allowing only the ICMP that does things you want to do. Google
something like "icmp types to allow" for some hints and opinions. Just
as an example, you can independently control being able to ping others
and others being able to ping you.
2) Will
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> To: Robert Bonomi
> Subject: Re: ipfw And ping
>
> On 12/01/2011 09:12 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >> From tun...@tundraware.com Thu Dec 1 20:57:55 2011
> >> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:56:03 -0600
> >>
> >> Both.
> >
On 12/01/2011 08:56 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Similarly, I let the firewall respond to pings adressed to it's _external_
interface, but silently drop anything addressed any further inside my
network. (If they can _reach_ my firewall, then a problem, whatever it
is, *is* 'my problem' and that's
On 12/01/2011 08:56 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Dec 1 17:27:19 2011
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:25:04 -0600
From: Tim Daneliuk
To: FreeBSD Mailing List
Subject: ipfw And ping
I have a fairly restrictive ipfw setup on a FBSD 8.2-STABLE machine.
Pings
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Dec 1 17:27:19 2011
> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:25:04 -0600
> From: Tim Daneliuk
> To: FreeBSD Mailing List
> Subject: ipfw And ping
>
> I have a fairly restrictive ipfw setup on a FBSD 8.2-STABLE machine.
> Pings were
You can rate-limit pings and other icmp with sysctl nodes (sysctl
net.inet.icmp )
You can make the rule a little more restrictive:
add allow icmp from any to any icmptypes 0,3,8,11
if you want to disallow echo requests, omit 8 - the others are
essential for most things to work properly or to dia
I have a fairly restrictive ipfw setup on a FBSD 8.2-STABLE machine.
Pings were not getting through so I added this near the top
of the rule set:
#
# Allow icmp
#
${FWCMD} add allow icmp from any to any
It does work but, two questions:
1) Is there a better way?
2) Will this c
In the last episode (Sep 13), Brett Glass said:
> Thank you! Since it's tunable at runtime I just tested it, and -- sure
> enough -- no negative ping times.
>
> Ironically, it was the kernel that selected the ACPI timer, scoring it
> higher than the timestamp counter as a cl
[ ...combining two emails... ]
On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
> If that's indeed the case, the kernel must be doing the math wrong.
While there have undoubtedly have been kernel bugs with timekeeping (and there
may be more still present), it's not uncommon for hardware issues to
At 09:16 AM 9/13/2011, Dan Nelson wrote:
It doesn't roll over in less than a second; it rolls over in 16777215 /
3579545 = 4.6 seconds. Your negative time delta problem isn't due to
rollover.
If that's indeed the case, the kernel must be doing the math wrong.
I wonder how many other systems
Thank you! Since it's tunable at runtime I just tested it, and -- sure enough --
no negative ping times.
Ironically, it was the kernel that selected the ACPI timer, scoring it higher
than the timestamp counter as a clock source. Perhaps code should be added to
ensure that the timer is not c
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 06:15 PM 9/12/2011, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>
> > sysctl -a kern.timecounter
>
> No docs on how to do this. Is this done by, for example, setting
>
> kern.timecounter.hardware="TSC"
>
> in loader.conf?
>
it's a runtime tunable so /etc/sysctl
At 06:54 PM 9/12/2011, b. f. wrote:
If you are just upgrading now, why not use 9 BETA?
Production machine.
Also, whenever we create a new production box, we normally pick the
release (not beta; we need to be able to do binary upgrades and
this is only supported from one release to another) wi
At 06:15 PM 9/12/2011, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>Your system's timekeeping appears to be busted. Are you running ntpd with
>"tinker step 0.0" or some home-grown mechanism which might be forcibly
>stepping the clock rather than skewing it, by any chance?
Nothing like that.
>Anyway, the output of:
> I just put FreeBSD 8.1 up on an old (but good) 500 MHz Celeron with
> half a gig of RAM. Interfaces are classic xl (3Com) and dc (DEC
> tulip). Works quite nicely except for one quirk: ping times that
> ought to be positive (no more than 200 ms worst case) are coming
> out negativ
On Sep 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> What's more, it appears that the negative ping times being shown for pings of
> localhost are off by about -687 ms, consistently. Any ideas?
Your system's timekeeping appears to be busted. Are you running ntpd with
"tinker s
More information regarding the odd behavior I'm seeing. Turns out
that packets do not even need to leave the machine for it to
report large negative ping times, on the order of more than half
a second. (See below.) Clearly something is odd about timekeeping
in this system (SiS motherboard ch
Here's a puzzler.
I just put FreeBSD 8.1 up on an old (but good) 500 MHz Celeron with
half a gig of RAM. Interfaces are classic xl (3Com) and dc (DEC
tulip). Works quite nicely except for one quirk: ping times that
ought to be positive (no more than 200 ms worst case) are coming
out neg
Your lo0 only has inet6 addresses, perhaps try binding a v4 address?
Cheers,
m!
On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:12, Tim Kellers wrote:
> On 08/19/10 11:02, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> On 19/08/2010 15:21, Tim Kellers wrote:
>>
>>> I'm eagerly open to suggestions.
>>>
>>>
>> What does 'ifconfig lo0
fconfig lo0 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0
and local mail resolved and was delivered and I can now ping localhost.
I just have to wonder how in heck it got that way.
Thanks all
Tim Kellers
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
On 08/19/10 11:02, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 19/08/2010 15:21, Tim Kellers wrote:
I'm eagerly open to suggestions.
What does 'ifconfig lo0' say?
What does 'sockstat | grep :25' say?
What does 'ls -la /usr/libexec/sendmail/' say?
What does 'mount | grep /usr' say?
It sounds as if e
On 08/19/10 10:55, Glen Barber wrote:
On 8/19/10 10:21 AM, Tim Kellers wrote:
When I ping localhost:
# ping localhost
PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address
Hi,
Is the loopback interface (lo0) up?
Regards,
lo0: flags
On 19/08/2010 15:21, Tim Kellers wrote:
> I'm eagerly open to suggestions.
>
What does 'ifconfig lo0' say?
What does 'sockstat | grep :25' say?
What does 'ls -la /usr/libexec/sendmail/' say?
What does 'mount | grep /usr' say?
It sounds as if either:
* Your loopback interface has lost addr
On 8/19/10 10:21 AM, Tim Kellers wrote:
> When I ping localhost:
> # ping localhost
> PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address
Hi,
Is the loopback interface (lo0) up?
Regards,
4:11 online sm-mta[68584]: o7JEEB8I068582:
to=, delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00,
mailer=local, pri=30840, relay=local, dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent
When I ping localhost:
# ping localhost
PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address
ping: sendto: Can&#x
Dear all:
I have setup an AP by using freeBSD 8 on eeebox b202.
The eeebox has two network interface. One is ethernet and the other is
wireless.
I setup AP, DHCP, NAT on it. I can already connect to this AP and connect to
the internet normally.
But, I can't ping the other client whi
ust go down without
EN> leaving any errors behind, now this morning it went down but didn't cut
EN> my ssh connection to the box and I got this error:
EN> ping: sendto: No buffer space available
EN> From what I have found this relates to protocols like udp and icmp, I
EN> ass
behind, now this morning it went down but didn't cut my ssh
> connection to the box and I got this error:
>
> ping: sendto: No buffer space available
>
> From what I have found this relates to protocols like udp and icmp, I
> assume this can occur with p2p but also vpn protocols
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm running FreeBSD 8.0. Some times my network just go down without
>> leaving any errors behind, now this morning it went down but didn't cut my
>> ssh connection to the box and I got this error:
>>
>> ping: sendto: No buffer space
Hi!
I'm running FreeBSD 8.0. Some times my network just go down without
leaving any errors behind, now this morning it went down but didn't cut
my ssh connection to the box and I got this error:
ping: sendto: No buffer space available
From what I have found this relates to prot
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Matthew Seaman <
m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> > I don't have man vimage. Is this part of Freebsd?
>
>
> It's in 8.0 and above -- VIMAGE is a kernel configuration option.
> It's a work in progress. See:
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/Image/TODO?highlight=%2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/04/2010 04:32:26, Aiza wrote:
> kurt seel wrote:
>> Aiza wrote:
>>> My jail has public internet access because i can do pkg_add -r
>>> unix2dos and the package does install. But when I enter ping -c 2
>>> fre
kurt seel wrote:
Aiza wrote:
My jail has public internet access because i can do pkg_add -r
unix2dos and the package does install. But when I enter ping -c 2
freebsd.org I get message "ping: socket: Operation not permitted"
There is no firewall running in the jail.
Any ideas would
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Aiza wrote:
> My jail has public internet access because i can do pkg_add -r unix2dos and
> the package does install. But when I enter ping -c 2 freebsd.org I get
> message "ping: socket: Operation not permitted" There is no firewall
&g
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Aiza wrote:
> My jail has public internet access because i can do pkg_add -r unix2dos and
> the package does install. But when I enter ping -c 2 freebsd.org I get
> message "ping: socket: Operation not permitted" There is no firewall
&g
My jail has public internet access because i can do pkg_add -r unix2dos
and the package does install. But when I enter ping -c 2 freebsd.org I
get message "ping: socket: Operation not permitted" There is no
firewall running in the jail.
Any ideas would be helpfu
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Mar 10 20:24:31 2010
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:23:44 +
> From: Anton Shterenlikht
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: can't ping localhost
>
> I misconfigured my system somehow,
> so now I can't pi
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:47:35AM +, Anton Shterenlikht typed:
>
> > I believe -current has a issue where you can not ping localhost atm
> >
>
> all my machines are current, but some are more current than others..
Why exactly are you running -current? People that
> > me...@mech-anton240.men.bris.ac.uk:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/QOF
> > sparc64
> >
> >
> > > I believe -current has a issue where you can not ping localhost atm
> > >
> >
> > all my machines are current, but some are more current than others..
> >
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:00:01PM -0500, Jon Radel wrote:
>
> > Well, the ping issue is just an example.
> > My real problem is that sendmail can't send
> > anything locally:
> >
> > # tail /var/log/maillog
> > Mar 11 02:16:58 mech-anton240 sm-msp
Well, the ping issue is just an example.
My real problem is that sendmail can't send
anything locally:
# tail /var/log/maillog
Mar 11 02:16:58 mech-anton240 sm-msp-queue[32611]: o2B0irgd029426: to=mexas,
ctladdr=mexas (1001/1001), delay=01:32:05, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay,
pri=4
elieve -current has a issue where you can not ping localhost atm
> >
>
> all my machines are current, but some are more current than others..
>
> Well, the ping issue is just an example.
> My real problem is that sendmail can't send
> anything locally:
>
> # tail
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Anton Shterenlikht
> wrote:
>> I misconfigured my system somehow,
>> so now I can't ping localhost:
>>
>> # ping localhost
>> PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 dat
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 08:34:08PM -0600, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Anton Shterenlikht
> wrote:
> > I misconfigured my system somehow,
> > so now I can't ping localhost:
> >
> > # ping localhost
> > PING localhost (127.0
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I misconfigured my system somehow,
> so now I can't ping localhost:
>
> # ping localhost
> PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ping: sendto: No route to host
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I misconfigured my system somehow,
> so now I can't ping localhost:
>
> # ping localhost
> PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ^C
w
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I misconfigured my system somehow,
> so now I can't ping localhost:
>
> # ping localhost
> PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ping: sendto: No route to host
I misconfigured my system somehow,
so now I can't ping localhost:
# ping localhost
PING localhost (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: sendto: No route to host
^C
# cat /etc/hosts
# $FreeBSD: head/etc/hosts 109997 2003-01-28 21:29:23Z dbaker $
r/src/sys/GENERIC i386
mx#
*mx# ping 127.0.0.1*
PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address
ping: sendto: Can't assign requested address
^C
--- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
*mx#
Hello my friends! Help me please with its problem. I`m don`t understood what
it is problem...
*mx# uname -a*
FreeBSD mx.taricat.ru 8.0-STABLE FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE #1: Mon Jan 25 09:28:38
UTC 2010 r...@mx.taricat.ru:/usr/obj/
usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386
mx#
*mx# ping 127.0.0.1*
PING 127.0.0.1
Paul Halliday wrote:
Is this situation always indicative of a network problem or can you
get a DUP from a machine that is multihomed and doing load balancing?
No, that's definitely a problem. Load-balancing mechanisms - try
to - forward packets though different paths, not twice as in this
situa
Is this situation always indicative of a network problem or can you
get a DUP from a machine that is multihomed and doing load balancing?
multihomed with same IP pool (i mean BGP and 2 or more
links) or multihomed with just 2 or more links to provider and different
IP's on each.
__
I couldn't think of a better place to throw this out, so I will try here.
Is this situation always indicative of a network problem or can you
get a DUP from a machine that is multihomed and doing load balancing?
Thanks.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:08:56 -0500
> From: st...@ibctech.ca
> To: faiz...@hotmail.com
> CC: li...@jnielsen.net; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ping stucks/hangs on PCI 3com NIC sk0 interface but works on
> builtin NIC
>
> Faizan ul haq Muhammad wr
Faizan ul haq Muhammad wrote:
>> Provide the output to "ifconfig bridge0", and "kldstat".
>
> ifconfig bridge0
>
> bridge0: flags=8843 metric 0
> mtu 1500
> ther 0e:04:7b:09:e7:b0
> inet 192.168.0.1 network 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
> id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwdd
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:24:26 -0500
> From: st...@ibctech.ca
> To: faiz...@hotmail.com
> CC: li...@jnielsen.net; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ping stucks/hangs on PCI 3com NIC sk0 interface but works on
> builtin NIC
>
> Faizan ul haq Muhammad wrote
Faizan ul haq Muhammad wrote:
>> After the ping is done (whether it works or not), stop the tcpdump and
>> email the output to the list if you can. If you can't email it, at least
>> type out the IP addresses captured, and the direction the data is
&
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:19:14 -0500
> From: st...@ibctech.ca
> To: faiz...@hotmail.com
> CC: li...@jnielsen.net; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ping stucks/hangs on PCI 3com NIC sk0 interface but works on
> builtin NIC
>
> Faizan ul haq Muhammad w
to
> the bridge i assigned IP 192.168.0.1
Ok. On the box with the bridge, su to root and start a tcpdump session:
# tcpdump -n -i bridge0
...and then, on 192.168.0.4, ping 192.168.0.5
After the ping is done (whether it works or not), stop the tcpdump and
email the output to the list if you can.
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:06:59 -0500
> From: st...@ibctech.ca
> To: faiz...@hotmail.com
> CC: li...@jnielsen.net; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ping stucks/hangs on PCI 3com NIC sk0 interface but works on
> builtin NIC
>
> Faizan ul haq Muhammad
fig_sk1="up"
> now, i dun have any network address assigned to any of the interface and
> connect the two lan cards to two other machines and try to ping those
> machines from each other. but no success.
Did the bridge interface actually come up?
> ... do you think, this is a
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:52:28 -0500
> From: st...@ibctech.ca
> To: faiz...@hotmail.com
> CC: li...@jnielsen.net; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ping stucks/hangs on PCI 3com NIC sk0 interface but works on
> builtin NIC
>
> Faizan ul haq Muha
Faizan ul haq Muhammad wrote:
> Now i assume that in order to configure the NICs with the same NETWORK and
> make them working i need to configure the System as router.
No.
A router's responsibility is to route packets between DISSIMILAR network
prefixes.
In essence, trying to do what you want
Thanks dude, it helped me. if i configure the NICs with IPs belonging to
different subnets, I get ping working locally.
I can see multiple routes for different subnets in NETSTAT too.
Now i assume that in order to configure the NICs with the same NETWORK and make
them working i need to
no carrier
> >
> > This is NIC doesn't appear to be plugged in.
>
> no it is not plugged into any other yet and if i plug it and ping it
> from an external machine, it works
That's good.
> > > sk0: flags=8843metric 0
> > > mtu 1500 options=b
>
> From: li...@jnielsen.net
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: ping stucks/hangs on PCI 3com NIC sk0 interface but works on
> builtin NIC
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:06:14 -0500
> CC: faiz...@hotmail.com
>
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 12:35:23 p
5
> media: Ethernet autoselect (none) status: no carrier
Neither is this one.
> Note: bge0 is builtin NIC
> sk0 is 3com PCI NIC
>
> now after configuration of IPV4 Addresses, when i verify the
> configuration with ping
>
> if i ping bge0(ping 192.168.0.1) i get the response
ping
if i ping bge0(ping 192.168.0.1) i get the response of success
but when i ping sk0 (ping 192.168.0.2) Ping gets stuck and gives no response,
neither it gives success or host unreachable or denied kinda errors.. it just
hangs over there.. and i can juz see one line of ping not proceeding
KES wrote:
> Thx. This help, but seems ugly. Because of I can miss other maybe
> usefull errors ((
> ping -q ya.ru 2>/dev/null
>
> Any other suggestions?
ping -q ya.ru 2>&1 1>/dev/null | grep -v 'ping: sendto: No route to host' >&2
Send ping stder
On Mon 2009-01-05 18:22:34 UTC+0200, KES (kes-...@yandex.ru) wrote:
> When I use
> ping -q ya.ru
> I get
> ping: sendto: No route to host
>
> How to make ping really quiet?
You can redirect all output to /dev/null:
For /bin/sh:
ping -c 1 host > /dev/null 2>&1
F
Hello, Frederique.
FR> KES wrote:
>> Hello, Questions.
>>
>> When I use
>> ping -q ya.ru
>> I get
>> ping: sendto: No route to host
>>
>> How to make ping really quiet?
>>
FR> Try:
FR> sh -c 'ping -q ya.ru > /dev/null
KES wrote:
> Hello, Questions.
>
> When I use
> ping -q ya.ru
> I get
> ping: sendto: No route to host
>
> How to make ping really quiet?
>
Try:
sh -c 'ping -q ya.ru > /dev/null 2>&1'
-- FR
___
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:22:34 +0200, KES wrote:
> Hello, Questions.
>
> When I use
> ping -q ya.ru
> I get
> ping: sendto: No route to host
>
> How to make ping really quiet?
It depends on your shell. For default scripting shell (Bourne Shell)
you can
ping -
Hello, Questions.
When I use
ping -q ya.ru
I get
ping: sendto: No route to host
How to make ping really quiet?
KES mailto:kes-...@yandex.ru
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
Rem P Roberti wrote:
Can someone tell what is going on here. All of a sudden I can't ping.
When I try a get this message:
ping: sendto: Permission denied
All internet functions seem to be working fine...just can't ping.
Rem
___
freebsd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> check your firewall rules
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Rem P Roberti wrote:
>
>> Can someone tell what is going on here. All of a sudden I can't ping.
>> When I try a get this message:
>&
Rem P Roberti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> ping: sendto: Permission denied
Did you (or another admin) change firewall rules? Also, please do a simple
google or list archive search before posting to the list. Searching for the
error you paste above results in seve
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rem P Roberti wrote:
Can someone tell what is going on here. All of a sudden I can't ping.
When I try a get this message:
ping: sendto: Permission denied
All internet functions seem to be working fine...just can't ping.
Firewall blocking ICM
check your firewall rules
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Rem P Roberti wrote:
Can someone tell what is going on here. All of a sudden I can't ping.
When I try a get this message:
ping: sendto: Permission denied
All internet functions seem to be working fine...just can't
Can someone tell what is going on here. All of a sudden I can't ping.
When I try a get this message:
ping: sendto: Permission denied
All internet functions seem to be working fine...just can't ping.
Rem
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org ma
After upgrading a -CURRENT box from the April 19 version to one
from yesterday, ping on that box seems to be broken. (I noticed the
behavior today; I don't know whether it's directly related to the
upgrade or not.)
Specifically:
huff@>> netstat -rn -f ine
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 04:01:27PM +0800, EdwardKing wrote:
> I configure ed0 when I install FreeBSD7.0,like follows:
> Host:test.example.com
> Domain:test.com
> IPv4 GateWay: 172.18.0.1
> Name server: 172.18.0.250
> IPv4 Address: 172.18.0.19
> Netmask:255.255.255.0
&g
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:10:25 -0400, "Chris Haulmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no ed in FreeBSD.
Off topic, but there is:
% man 4 ed
ed -- NE-2000 and WD-80x3 Ethernet driver
Older NIC, but still present, works for RealTek RTL-8029,
for example.
--
Polytropon
>From
>
> This is your interface - le0.
Additonally do not forget to run /etc/netstart
> options=8
> > either 00:0d:18:23:32:7a
> > inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe76:365a%le0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
> > inet 0.0.0.0 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 255.255.255.255
>
> It shows that your le0 interface has not b
e is no ed in FreeBSD.
>
> Then I Ping itself,like follows:
> #ping 172.18.0.19
>
> Then result is failure:
> ping: sendto: No route to host
>
> Why?
>
> I use ifconfig -a to show my ip,like follows:
>
> le0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu
> 1500
This is your interf
I configure ed0 when I install FreeBSD7.0,like follows:
Host:test.example.com
Domain:test.com
IPv4 GateWay: 172.18.0.1
Name server: 172.18.0.250
IPv4 Address: 172.18.0.19
Netmask:255.255.255.0
Then I Ping itself,like follows:
#ping 172.18.0.19
Then result is failure:
ping: sendto: No
On my gateway I configured a tunnel device (tun0) and connected it with a
remote host using OpenSSH. Ifconfig looks as follows:tun0:
flags=8051 mtu 1500inet 10.254.254.1
--> 10.254.254.2 netmask 0xff00 Opened by PID 4619I can ping or
connect via ssh to 10.254.25.2 but I
at the client (tested under
> > both Linux and Windows) accepts.
> >
> > The client doesn't get the DNS resolver information and can't
> > ping anywhere, even by raw IP address, even to the router. The
> > router also fails to ping the client.
> Yeah, off
oesn't get the DNS resolver information and can't
> ping anywhere, even by raw IP address, even to the router. The
> router also fails to ping the client.
>
> This is FreeBSD stable, updated about a week ago. dhcpd.conf
> and pf.conf files are attached.
>
> Any ide
1 - 100 of 317 matches
Mail list logo
