On Tuesday 13 February 2007 04:57, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Kevin Way wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal
> > > perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
> > >
> > If asked what -alias does, would you really reply "it
JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > No, not at all. As soon as you use the terms "primary IP
> > address" and "secondary IP addresses", you imply that they
> > are not equal. But they are equal. It's just a list of
> > IP addresses assigned to an interface which hap
J. T. Farmer wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > But when removing something without specifying which one,
> > it makes some sense to simply remove the first existing
> > address on that interface. It would even be OK with me
> > to remove the last one, or an arbitrary one -- I use that
> > sh
JoaoBR wrote:
The only correct thing you say here is that all IPs are equal - and - nobody
EVER said something different.
Aliasing does not say anything about priority of the Ip it is simply related
to the time the interface was set with the IP so the first IP is the one
which was set first
Hi.
Interesting - Someone else mentioned the same thing. The amr(4)
manpage doesn't seem to be updated to mention the latest cards
though. I did notice the driver hasn't been really updated in a
while either. Wouldn't this cause a problem with identifying the
newer cards?
The authoritativ
> > Interesting - Someone else mentioned the same thing. The amr(4)
> > manpage doesn't seem to be updated to mention the latest cards
> > though. I did notice the driver hasn't been really updated in a
> > while either. Wouldn't this cause a problem with identifying the
> > newer cards?
> >
>
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 02:38 am, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > No, not at all. As soon as you use the terms "primary IP
> > > address" and "secondary IP addresses", you imply that they
> > > are not equal. But they are equal. It'
> For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the
> primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks
> of /32 be secondary? In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
> cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs?
Indeed. I too am no
On Monday 12 February 2007 11:57 pm, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Kevin Way wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal
> > > perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
> >
> > If asked what -alias does, would you really reply "it r
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 12:44 am, JoaoBR wrote:
> On Monday 12 February 2007 22:37, Joerg Pernfuss wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:18:54 -0300
> >
> > JoaoBR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe the problem here is that
> > >
> > > ifconfig_nic="inet IP"
> > > ifconfig_nic="ether MAC"
>
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 05:19:59PM +, Pete French wrote:
> > For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the
> > primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks
> > of /32 be secondary? In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
> >
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> I think this has been discussed before. The problem is that FreeBSD's
> bootloader doesn't support booting off of such devices, thus you
> need to use GRUB or another bootloader.
But the guy from tutorial is doing that, and I made such a stick too.
And it boots on ThinkP
Hi,
While upgrading a fileserver / home wireless access point to
6.2-RELEASE, it wouldn't come back after the regular
build/installworld/mergemaster procedures.
I attached a keyboard and monitor to the server and noticed it was
panicking on boot, current process being sysctl:
Feb 13 18:2
Freddie Cash wrote:
> For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the
> primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks
> of /32 be secondary?
That's historic. :-) Old versions of FreeBSD indeed
required the netmask of the "aliases" to be /3
Freddie Cash wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > If asked what "-alias" does, I would reply that it is an
> > alias for "delete" or "remove", which removes an IP address
> > from an interface. According to the docs, the IP address
> > to be removed must be specified. The docs don't mention
>
On Tuesday 13 February 2007 10:37 am, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
> > For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't
> > the primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with
> > netmasks of /32 be secondary?
>
> That's historic. :-) Old versi
> > In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
> > cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs?
>
> No. I can delete _any_ of the above IP addresses, and the
> others would still work perfectly fine. I already did
> things like that (on a different machine).
>
> As for outgoing
* Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20070212 19:11]:
> But you called it "confusing". That's just your personal
> perception. It doesn't mean it is confusing to everybody.
> In fact it might be useful to others. It _is_ useful to
> me, for example, and I would object for that syntax to go
> awa
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 07:37:17PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Freddie Cash wrote:
> > For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't the
> > primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with netmasks
> > of /32 be secondary?
>
> That's historic. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > In that situation, wouldn't deleting the primary IP
> > > cause connection issues for the rest of the IPs?
> >
> > No. I can delete _any_ of the above IP addresses, and the
> > others would still work perfectly fine. I already did
> > things like that (
Freddie Cash wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Freddie Cash wrote:
> > > For a set of IPs in the same subnet on the same interface, wouldn't
> > > the primary IP be the one with the proper netmask, and all IPs with
> > > netmasks of /32 be secondary?
> >
> > That's historic. :-) Old vers
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:36:25PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > # ifconfig re0
> > > re0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> > > options=1b
> > > inet 88.198.44.136 netmask 0xffe0 broadcast 88.198.44.159
> > > inet 88.198.173.154 netmask 0xfff8 broadcast 88.198.173.159
One thing I would like to see is a list of favoured non-raid multiport cards
that are not dumb. We have a server running a rocket RAID controller
(largely to get 8 ports of SATA). It doesn't do hot swap, it doesn't do
SMART and I'm beginning to believe it might occasionally corrupt sectors
(very
On Saturday 10 February 2007 12:33, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Sven Willenberger wrote:
>
> > lock order reversal: (sleepable after non-sleepable)
> > 1st 0x8836b010 bge0 (network driver)
@ /usr/src/sys/dev/bge/if_bge.c:2675
> > 2nd 0x805f26b0 user map (user map)
Karel Miklav wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> I think this has been discussed before. The problem is that FreeBSD's
> bootloader doesn't support booting off of such devices, thus you
> need to use GRUB or another bootloader.
But the guy from tutorial is doing that, and I made such a stick too
25 matches
Mail list logo
