On 2018-08-10, Henry Bonath wrote:
> Also could it be that you are using IPv6, not IPv4? (and your IPv6 is
> missing its gateway)
> If the IPv6 gateway is bad/missing you'll get that "no route to host"
> message.
This is for fastly.cdn.openbsd.org which is cnamed to
osff.map.fastly.net - the DNS
On 2018-08-11, Walt wrote:
> On August 10, 2018 3:57 PM, Henry Bonath he...@thebonaths.com wrote:
>
>> Also could it be that you are using IPv6, not IPv4? (and your IPv6 is
>> missing its gateway)
>> If the IPv6 gateway is bad/missing you'll get that "no route to host"
>> message.
>
> I've encount
On 2018-08-11, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure you got that right.
>
> If you are an ISP the minimum assignment is /32 and you assigned /48 to
> end company and /56 to users.
>
> If you asked me that's a wasted, but that's what they suggest.
>
> For end users, a /64 would be plenty i
Sorry for the double posting.
But Just to add to the info, the RFC 3177 did specify assignment to
remote site even house being /48 and big site like /47
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177
Crazy.
The revise version of it RFC 6177 correct that crazy assignment and
specif that you should do /56.
Hi,
I am not sure you got that right.
If you are an ISP the minimum assignment is /32 and you assigned /48 to
end company and /56 to users.
If you asked me that's a wasted, but that's what they suggest.
For end users, a /64 would be plenty if you asked me and /56 for company
would be plenty as
On 8/10/18 10:38 PM, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure you got that right.
>
> If you are an ISP the minimum assignment is /32 and you assigned /48 to
> end company and /56 to users.
>
> If you asked me that's a wasted, but that's what they suggest.
>
> For end users, a /64 would
On August 10, 2018 3:57 PM, Henry Bonath he...@thebonaths.com wrote:
> Also could it be that you are using IPv6, not IPv4? (and your IPv6 is
> missing its gateway)
> If the IPv6 gateway is bad/missing you'll get that "no route to host"
> message.
I've encountered that issue before, but it isn't t
Also could it be that you are using IPv6, not IPv4? (and your IPv6 is
missing its gateway)
If the IPv6 gateway is bad/missing you'll get that "no route to host"
message.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Stuart Henderson
wrote:
> On 2018-08-07, traveller wrote:
> > After OpenBSD, one too many “/
On 2018-08-07, traveller wrote:
> After OpenBSD, one too many “/“
That won't cause this.
> On Aug 7, 2018, 11:16 AM -0700, Benjamin Walkenhorst
> , wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I recently installed OpenBSD 6.3 in a VPS.
>>
>> In the last few days, I get an error message when running pkg_ad
On 08/07/18 13:18, traveller wrote:
After OpenBSD, one too many “/“
I concur.
cat /etc/installurl
https://fastly.cdn.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD
You probably did the ole copy/paste from somewhere and got a trailing '/'.
On Aug 7, 2018, 11:16 AM -0700, Benjamin Walkenhorst
, wrote:
Hello ev
After OpenBSD, one too many “/“
On Aug 7, 2018, 11:16 AM -0700, Benjamin Walkenhorst
, wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I recently installed OpenBSD 6.3 in a VPS.
>
> In the last few days, I get an error message when running pkg_add, "no route
> to host".
> I have tried setting various hosts in /etc/
вт, 7 авг. 2018 г., 21:16 Benjamin Walkenhorst <
walkenhorst.benja...@gmail.com>:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I recently installed OpenBSD 6.3 in a VPS.
>
> In the last few days, I get an error message when running pkg_add, "no
> route to host".
> I have tried setting various hosts in /etc/installurl, b
Ingo , Martin, All,
i can confirm
when the issue occured the command
arp -s gateway-ip-address gateway-mac-address
worked to restore connectivity
Cheers,
Tom Smyth
On 1 May 2018 at 21:16, Tom Smyth wrote:
> Hello Ingo, Martin,All,
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head, (I was too busy l
Hello Ingo, Martin,All,
I think you hit the nail on the head, (I was too busy looking at the
routing table (and forgot the fundamental principle of longest prefix
match)
so if I have a static arp entry before adding in the
(more specific than the connected route) i should be OK
just to explain
On 01/05/18(Tue) 21:28, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> [...]
> So what you are doing seems fragile to me. It may sometimes work
> due to order of configuration, timeouts, whatever, i'm not sure.
It can work if the ARP entry, what Ingo called the /32 is created
before you add your /23.
> But once part o
Hi Tom,
i think i am able to reproduce your problem on -current:
# sh /etc/netstart em0
# route -n show -inet
default192.168.2.1UGS00 - 8 em0
192.168.2/24 192.168.2.100 UCn10 - 4 em0
192.168.2.1link#1
I'm not an expert but i had same issue while using 6.1 as a guest os on a
kvm.
I updated to 6.2 and problem vanished.
On Tue, 1 May 2018, 09:07 Tom Smyth, wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have encountered this issue for a while, it happens irregularly
> on my systems on this lan
> basically when the issue
Here is my rules (without macro & table definitions which are before,
sensible rules are hidden, but are in the same template as shown rules
and same place)
##
## Options
##
set skip on lo0
set block-policy drop
set limit { states 5, frags 2, src-nodes 4, table-entries
60 }
##
#
Look for states of pf
the default is 1
if the maximum is reached
pf will block
# systat pf
If needed increase this
2012/11/27 Laurent Caron (Mobile)
> "Loïc BLOT" a écrit :
>
> >Hello to OpenBSD users,
> >
> >i have a little problem, i think it's linked with PF, but i have no
> >proof
"Loïc BLOT" a écrit :
>Hello to OpenBSD users,
>
>i have a little problem, i think it's linked with PF, but i have no
>proofs. System is OpenBSD 5.1 but OpenBSD 5.2 get the same things (with
>different card, 5.1 uses bnx and 5.2 use em)
>I have a router with squid proxy, named and isc-dhcpd. The
20 matches
Mail list logo
