Hi,
I've made some tests on ldpd and found some problems/strange things with the
following configuration:
2 hosts (v 5.0)
- core3 (loopback 10.0.0.7)
- core1 (loopback 10.0.0.9)
2 links between these 2 hosts:
- vlan211 (on em9)
core3 IP: 10.0.0.125
core1 IP: 10.0.0.126
- vlan212 (o
Hi,
When an ospf route already exists, ospf6d doesn't update the nexthop.
I have 6 routers (4 with openbsd 5.0, 2 with openbsd 4.9) running ospfd,
ospf6d and bgpd, routeur id is on lo1.
For some reason (see at end for a way to reproduce it), one of the router
(openbsd 5.0 one) have multiple ospf
aving same code with
#ifdef mecanism for good reasons. After 5 years of evolution, does these
reasons still appear beoing valid (I just ask, I haven't sufficient knowledge
to give an answer).
Manuel
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 17:14:42 +0200
Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| Hi,
>|
>| When an ospf
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:00:26 +0200
Claudio Jeker wrote:
>| On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 05:19:53PM +0200, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > Hi,
>| >
>| > After checking cvs tree, it seems that ospf6d isn't following changes done
>in
>| > ospfd.
>| >
>| &g
?
Manuel
--
______
Manuel Guesdon - OXYMIUM
continue;
+ krcount++;
- imsg_compose_event(iev_main, IMSG_KROUTE_CHANGE, 0, 0, -1,
- &kr, sizeof(kr));
+ bzero(&kr, sizeof(kr));
+ kr.prefix = r->prefix;
+ kr.nexthop = rn->nexthop;
+ if (IN6_IS_ADDR
Hi,
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:04:22 +0100
Jan Johansson wrote:
...
>| I am now trying to replicate this setup for IPv6 using
>| ospf6d but it seems that it will only announce addresses on
>| active interfaces.
FYI, having the same problem (on passive emX; I haven't tried on carp), I've
applied your
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:21:59 +0800
Patrick Coleman wrote:
>| On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Manuel Guesdon
>| wrote:
>| > Hi,
>| >
>| > On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:04:22 +0100
>| > Jan Johansson wrote:
>| > ...
>| >>| I am now trying to replicate t
Hi,
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 12:50:52 + (GMT)
a b wrote:
>| I've got a curious issue.
>|
...
>| The loopback and vlan interfaces get added to the RIB without
>| problem.
>|
>| bnx1 does not get added to the RIB unless I remove the {passive}
>| statement, in
>| which case everything works fine.
On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:36:01 + (GMT)
a b wrote:
>| Awsome !
>|
>| Thanks Manuel.
>|
>| Think I'll hold out for it to become an errata patch rather than applying
>the
>| interim one.
>|
>| I've also got an issue with BGPD not complying with "announce all" when
>talking
>| to an eBGP nei
Hi,
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:09:32 +0100
Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
>| I'm using two ethernet cards Intel 1000/PRO quad ports (gigabit) on a
>| firewall (one fiber and one copper).
>|
>| The problem is that we don't get more than ~320 Mbits/s of bandwith
>| beetween the internal networks and intern
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:52:21 +0100
Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
>| Le Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:13:48 +0100,
>| Manuel Guesdon a icrit :
>|
>| Hello,
>|
>| > We've got same problems (on a routeur, not a firewall). Increasing
>| > MAX_INTS_PER_SEC to 24000 increased
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:41:20 +0900
Ryan McBride wrote:
..
>| The output of `systat mbufs` is worth looking at, in particular the
>| figure for LIVELOCKS, and the LWM/CWM figures for the interface(s) in
>| question.
>|
>| If the livelocks value is very high, and the LWM/CWM numbers are very
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:03:22 -0700 (MST)
Theo de Raadt wrote:
>| >> We've got same problems (on a routeur, not a firewall). Increasing
>| >> MAX_INTS_PER_SEC to 24000 increased bandwith and lowered packet loss.
>| >> Our cards are "Intel PRO/1000 (82576)" and "Intel PRO/1000 FP
>| >> (82576)".
>
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:29:01 +0900
Ryan McBride wrote:
>| On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
>| > remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
>
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 21:52:03 +0900
Ryan McBride wrote:
>| On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:49:01PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > OK. Anyway NIC buffers restrict buffered packets number. But the problem
>| > remain: why a (for exemple) dual Xeon E5520@2.27GHz with Intel PRO/1000
>
2k 9 4 256 9
The 2 systems are generic MP kernel build with options:
option MULTIPROCESSOR
option MPLS
And option EM_DEBUG on "core3" (the 4.8 system): I've added it to try
to debug this problem.
core3 run ospf (v4 & v6) and bgpd with 13 peers and around 344000
routes (3 peers feed 34
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:51:46 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson wrote:
>| On 2011-02-28, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > http://www.oxymium.net/tmp/core3-dmesg
>|
>| "ipmi0 at mainbus0: version 2.0 interface KCS iobase 0xca2/2 spacing 1"
>|
>| ipmi is disabled in GENERIC.
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:12:09 +0100
Claudio Jeker wrote:
>| On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:11:13AM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 00:51:46 + (UTC)
>| > Stuart Henderson wrote:
>| >
>| > >| On 2011-02-28, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > &
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 22:53:30 +0900
Ryan McBride wrote:
>| On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 03:52:54PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > >| I think we already mentioned it that you will always see Ierr. The
>| > >| question is if the box is able to forward more then 150kpps.
>| >
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:09:51 +0900
Ryan McBride wrote:
>| On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:40:10PM +0100, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > "systat -s 2 vmstat":
>| >
>| >3.2%Int 0.1%Sys
with bmc ?
Manuel
--
__
Manuel Guesdon - OXYMIUM
Hi,
I have some problem with a redistributed static route not added to
the routing table.
On a routeur A, there is a static route:
route add -net a.b.c.d/27 e.f.g.h
(e.f.g.h is a carp IP on this router)
"route get a.b.c.d" show the good gateway (e.f.g.h)
ospfd.conf for this router have
Hi,
Is there a way to get detailed em(4) device errors without having to
recompile kernel with EM_DEBUG ?
I try to find in-errors reason(s) but netstat only gives errors as a sum of
dropped_pkts + stats.rxerrc + stats.crcerrs + sc->stats.algnerrc +... as far
as I can see :-(
Manuel
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:38:55 +0100
Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| Is there a way to get detailed em(4) device errors without having to
>| recompile kernel with EM_DEBUG ?
>| I try to find in-errors reason(s) but netstat only gives errors as a sum of
>| dropped_pkts + stats.rxerrc + s
25 matches
Mail list logo
