e I'll probably remove it soon, but I think lilo just
places itself in the boot segment so it should be fine.
Any help would be most welcome...
--
Lionel
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fr
Derek Ragona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 05:12 PM 6/13/2008, Lionel wrote:
>
> I've had to install Windows XP in dual boot on a freeBSD box, and of
> course it erased the bootloader to replace it with its own. Now I'd like
> to restore the freeBSD
kernel. I have slightly
simplified the description but all the relevant parts should be here.
Anticipated thanks for your answers, and best regards.
-- Lionel Fourquaux
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.free
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 08:50:53PM -0400, David Scheidt wrote:
On Apr 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Lionel Fourquaux wrote:
em0 has addresses fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abc and 2001:db8::1
em1 has address fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abd
Network 2001:db8::/64 is directly attached to em0, and network
2001:db8:0:1
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 06:43:11PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Sorry, it _is_ impossible.
:(
simply put, to communicate _on_ a network, you have to be *ON* that
network, i.e., 'have an address in that network's address-space'.
I don't quite see why this would be required, as long as packets
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:17:40PM +1000, Daniel Marsh wrote:
What you need to verify is the default routes on the client hosts. It's very
likely your packets and your initial route add commands on your dual host
machine are correct, yet the return route on the other clients are
incorrect.
I ha
