2010/8/16 Toni Mueller :
> I'm looking for a low-power box that can handle up to some 15-20 MBit/s
> of IPSEC traffic with ease, has two or more nics, and not much else.
> I'd prefer to have 1 gig of RAM, though.
Try the Lanner LEC 2026:
http://www.sphinxcomputer.com/Lanner-Electronics-Inc-/Lanner
Hi,
thanks for the answer!
On Sat, 14.08.2010 at 09:45:30 +, Stuart Henderson
wrote:
> If they are indeed different bios versions (you can probably tell
> from the dmesg lines that you do see, as the BIOS version is printed
> quite early), and you can get something that can run flashrom boo
On 2010-08-13, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
>
> thanks for the idea.
>
> On Thu, 12.08.2010 at 12:09:02 +, Stuart Henderson
> wrote:
>> Guessing based on very little information, but they probably have
>> different BIOSes.
>
> Unfortunately, as I just hear, the manufacturer dropped suppo
Hi Stuart,
thanks for the idea.
On Thu, 12.08.2010 at 12:09:02 +, Stuart Henderson
wrote:
> Guessing based on very little information, but they probably have
> different BIOSes.
Unfortunately, as I just hear, the manufacturer dropped support for
these machines. My supplier also only learnt
Guessing based on very little information, but they probably have
different BIOSes.
On 2010-08-12, Toni Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 01.08.2010 at 13:49:07 -0700, Peter Merritt
> wrote:
>> I have a firewall that has been running several versions of OpenBSD
>> successfully, the last being 4
Hi,
On Sun, 01.08.2010 at 13:49:07 -0700, Peter Merritt
wrote:
> I have a firewall that has been running several versions of OpenBSD
> successfully, the last being 4.6. After installing 4.7, I could not get
> the firewall to pass any traffic from the lan side.
I'm experiencing a very similar pr
* Geoff Steckel [2010-08-08 22:47]:
> On 08/08/2010 03:28 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
> >* Geoff Steckel [2010-08-08 20:29]:
> >>Your pf.conf should only hold state on one side. Multiple conflicting
> >>state table entries for the same connection ensure flaky failures.
> >
> >that is wrong in so ma
On 08/08/2010 03:28 PM, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Geoff Steckel [2010-08-08 20:29]:
Your pf.conf should only hold state on one side. Multiple conflicting
state table entries for the same connection ensure flaky failures.
that is wrong in so many ways.
first, "should only hold state on one side
* Geoff Steckel [2010-08-08 20:29]:
> Your pf.conf should only hold state on one side. Multiple conflicting
> state table entries for the same connection ensure flaky failures.
that is wrong in so many ways.
first, "should only hold state on one side" is bullshit advice.
holding state on both si
I've got a C7 board running 4.7 as my firewall.
The configuration is a lot more baroque than yours...
A couple of thoughts:
Your pf.conf should only hold state on one side. Multiple conflicting
state table entries for the same connection ensure flaky failures.
I use "quick" wherever possible to
@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: OBSD 4.7 and Via C7 motherboards problem
Thanks for the help, does look correct to me.
Peter
re0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
lladdr 00:30:18:ad:ed:96
priority: 0
groups: egress
media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX
full
Peter,
We purchased a couple of VIA C7 machines, specifically the NFR7500 for
use as firewalls
(http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/embedded/ProductDetail.jsp?id=341),
and had an insane number of problems with the network interfaces, to the
point of them being unusable (namely, they could not k
Message-
From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf
Of Robert
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 4:30 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: OBSD 4.7 and Via C7 motherboards problem
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 13:49:07 -0700
"Peter Merritt" wrote:
> minimal pf.conf and i
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 13:49:07 -0700
"Peter Merritt" wrote:
> minimal pf.conf and it still works the same. I'm at a loss what is
> wrong. pf.conf and dmess follows. Any ideas would be greatly
> appreciated.
Just some ideas:
* check the routing tables on the client if they point to the firewall
and
14 matches
Mail list logo
