* Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-23 14:16]:
> On 2008-05-23, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-23 12:56]:
> >> This reminds me, is there a deliberate reason for forcing the control
> >> socket to be unlinked (at least ospfd
On 2008-05-23, Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-23 12:56]:
>> This reminds me, is there a deliberate reason for forcing the control
>> socket to be unlinked (at least ospfd and bgpd, probably others) rather
>> than just refusing to run if i
* Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-23 12:56]:
> This reminds me, is there a deliberate reason for forcing the control
> socket to be unlinked (at least ospfd and bgpd, probably others) rather
> than just refusing to run if it already exists? Admittedly it's not a
> mistake many people
On 2008-05-23, Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Redirecting to misc@, as that is more appropriate (although I have my
> doubts, see below)
It looks like the OP has been trying on FreeBSD fora already to no
avail... their port doesn't include any sample ospfd.conf, let alone
one with corr
Redirecting to misc@, as that is more appropriate (although I have my
doubts, see below)
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 05:50:48PM -0700, Jim Engeseth wrote:
| I intalled openospf.
What do you mean ? It comes with the base OS, so this seems like a
weird statement to make. Do you mean that you've install
5 matches
Mail list logo
