On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GPL is as free as communism.
Please add this to fortune!
--
Massimo.run();
She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by
wrong. -- Mae West
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:04:44 +0200
Claudio Jeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a big fan of acx(4) as AP. acx(4) has an excellent radio chip compared
> to ral(4) PCI card I used before. There are some high power wi(4) that
> make also very nice access points (11b only but strong signal).
Do yo
Hi all,
with my own CDs i freshly installed 4.1 on my laptop, everything is
working smootly expect for an UMTS PCMCIA card which is not totally
recognized.
I think this is similar to the ones supported by ubsa(4).
This is the kernel messages obtained when i insert the PCMCIA card on a
4.1 GENER
On Wed, 2 May 2007 21:48:38 +1000
Jonathan Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds like umsm(4) would be more likely to me.
>
> Can you send the output of "usbdevs -v"?
Here you are:
Controller /dev/usb0:
addr 1: full speed, self powered, config 1, UHCI root hub(0x), Intel
(0x8086), rev 1.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:40:49 -0600
Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hope you guys out there enjoy the changes that we've made.
You can't imagine how much i enjoyed reading through commit logs.
Amazing. Thank you!
--
Massimo.run();
: is not an identifier
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 13:55 +0100, Craig Skinner wrote:
> When I worked for a small ISP that had 5000 domains, we found the best
> thing to do was use passwd for auth as anything else was too slow.
>
> When an account was added via the website, a perl script would pull data
> from SQL, generate
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 13:48 +0200, Bihlmaier Andreas wrote:
> I dont mean to offend you, but ...
> Doh, I know that and these are VERY nice figures, BUT my problem is
> that I have to slow (== no acceleration) speed in IPSEC.
> I thought that OPenBSD would just make use of it (again in IPSEC) if i
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 17:49 +0200, Bihlmaier Andreas wrote:
> Sorry, for that but I thought it wouldn't matter:
I dont mean to offend you, but... i think test environment matter.
> All hosts are in the same network and can talk directly to each other,
> but for unsecure protocols (NFS, HTTP) I
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 10:00 +0200, Markus Friedl wrote:
> yes, the card needs to support all algorithms,
> crypto_newsession() does this:
>
> /*
>* The algorithm we use here is pretty stupid; just use the
>* first driver that supports all the algorithms we need. Do
>
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 20:04 +0200, Hans-Joerg Hoexer wrote:
> we are.
It would be great if you could explain us a little more about this?
BTW thanks for the great tool ipsecctl is!
Ciao
--
Massimo.run();
I got a VPN network which works quite well, i mean works very well
thanks to OpenBSD and its implementation but i got one end point over
the 6 running which causing me troubles.
The configuration is done with ipsec.conf and is identical to others
which works well.
Here some example config:
ike esp
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 00:51 -0700, Clint Pachl wrote:
> Are both end points trying to negotiate? Try using the "passive" keyword
> on one endpoint: "ike passive esp ..."
Yes both active. Does that should cause problems?
> I have experienced the same issue. I don't know the details of what
> ex
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 03:57 -0700, Clint Pachl wrote:
> Agreed, that is not suitable and I don't do that. I guess I
> misunderstood the point at which your failure was occurring. I believed
> it to be initially or some short time after you started each end point.
> In my experience, I am using
I just updated from CVS today and cannot do a make build anymore.
I successfully installed a booted a GENERIC kernel.
OpenBSD 3.9-current (GENERIC) #3: Wed Jul 5 09:38:20 CEST 2006
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC
cpu0: Intel Pentium III ("GenuineIntel" 686-class) 602
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 16:41 +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> You probably did not do a make build, but took a shortcut.
No at all.
I've followed precisely the procedure described here:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq5.html
as I've always done before, I forgot to mention that the machine was a
curren
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 17:38 +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> What is the version of your libc? Check ls -l /usr/lib/libc.so.*,
> newest version should be 39.2.
>
> $ nm /usr/lib/libc.so.39.2 | grep adjfreq
> 000411f0 T _thread_sys_adjfreq
> 000411f0 W adjfreq
I'm building right now on the second b
On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 03:05 -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> What is the process one should pass through in order to have built a
> bsd.rd kernel?
I highly suggest you to look at flashboot.
--
Massimo.run();
On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 02:33 -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote:
> PS: If you have a kernel configuration file for exact that hardware, i
> would enjoy too.
Look at flashboot[1] source.
[1] http://mindrot.org/flashboot.html
--
Massimo.run();
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 15:43 +0200, Sven Ingebrigt Ulland wrote:
> How long have you been running openbsd isakmpd/ipsec (in production)?
We've been using them since 3.9 and got small quirks mostly due to our
misunderstanding of protocols and implementations, a little also due to
the initial lack
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 11:36 +, Ryan McBride wrote:
> I've just committed code based on a suggestion made by Daniel Hartmeier
> to make flags S/SA keep state the default for rules.
THANKS!
--
Massimo.run();
Hi all,
I wish to know actually which chipset this board has on, since the
spec sheet says it has to be a RTL8110S-32 but after seeing the dmesg
output I'm not so sure right now.
This is from a 4.0-CURRENT from mid of September (14/09)
re0 at pci0 dev 11 function 0 "Realtek 8169" rev 0x10: irq
On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 09:59 +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> This is because the hardware presents the same number to the
> kernel for 8169/8169S/8110S. The 8110S is designed
> to be used on system boards, 8169 is the sort of thing that can
> be found on pci cards.
Thanks for the clarification.
Wha
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:12:51 -0700 (MST)
Diana Eichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Tom Cosgrove wrote:
>
> > Although they're not yet available, Wim is hoping to sell
> > http://www.liantec.com/product/emboard/EMB-5740.htm soon.
> >
> > See http://www.kd85.com/liantec.html.
I'm really happy since i can now try to work with the wpi(4) on my
laptop.
I freshly installed 4.0 and got
wpi0 at pci5 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG" rev 0x02: irq
10, address 00:13:02:18:e5:b2
but as soon as i try
ifconfig wpi0 up
and the driver try to load the firware i got
wpi0:
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 10:56 +0100, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> If i can do anything to help you debug this problem, please let me know,
> I'll try.
Could be this related?
CVSROOT:/cvs
Module name:src
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006/11/01 04:25:01
Modified files:
This[1] is from a LE-565 board which refuse to run normally when 2 or
more network are attached to more then one re(4).
As soon as i configure and connect an Ethernet cable to a second nic i
get the "watchdog timeout" error at the bottom of the dmesg. No matter
if i put traffic on wire or not.
BTW
Hi misc,
I got a 4.5 box which act as a perimeter ipsec routing gateway, it
has 682 flow (by ipsecctl -sf | wc -l).
Some of this flow are up with a static route to the other point of the
ipsec tunnel and some of these routes are changing dynamically (netstat
shows UGHMS flags).
When these rou
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:44:36 +0100
Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> Any hints is really appreciated.
Should I stop accepting icmp redirect with the sysctl knobs as the
changes in the 4.6 release?
Cheers
--
Massimo
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:43:39 +0100
Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:28:33AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2010-03-10, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> > > Hi misc,
> > > I got a 4.5 box which act as a perimeter ipsec routing gateway,
> > &
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:55:51 +0100
Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > > Wow that's a strange flag combo. Why is S & M set together?
> > > Hmm. Another strange routing thing I need to have a loot at.
> > > Most probably the cloning is done wrong.
> >
> > Hmm, does it have to be cloned? Couldn't this be the
at uhub1 port 1 configuration 1 interface 1 "SILITEK USB
Keyboard" rev 1.10/2.00 addr 2 uhidev1: iclass 3/0, 2 report ids
uhid0 at uhidev1 reportid 1: input=5, output=0, feature=0
uhid1 at uhidev1 reportid 2: input=5, output=0, feature=4
vscsi0 at root
scsibus1 at vscsi0: 256 targets
softraid0 at root
root on wd0a swap on wd0b dump on wd0b
The machine bios sees 4G RAM while OpenBSD 4.7amd64 sees only 3G RAM
Any clue is really appreciated, thanks
Regards
--
Massimo Lusetti
On Wed, 19 May 2010 11:40:33 +0200
Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I got a small issue with a FW-8750 which boots:
>
> OpenBSD 4.7-current (GENERIC.MP) #227: Wed Apr 28 11:55:45 MDT 2010
> dera...@amd64.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.MP
> rea
On Wed, 19 May 2010 13:32:19 +0200
Robert wrote:
> This is the expected behaviour.
> Check the mailinglist-archives for details. (hint: "bigmem")
Thanks for the hint, looking for infos.
Thanks to others answering privately too, even the ones suggesting
another MUA ;)
Cheers
--
Massimo
On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:07:31 +0200
Henning Brauer wrote:
> argh, no. bigmem isn't useable as of now or it would be default.
>
> the difference being PCI space mostly. only have 32bit adressing ake
> 4G for mem AND pci etc, ya know.
yep, reading archives and commit logs I have come to the decisi
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 23:06:58 +0200
Reyk Floeter wrote:
> This is a very brief summary, more information will follow.
>
> reyk
>
That's great! ... 4.7 is just behind the door and is already time to
move on -current!
I got 48 IPsec gateways which just await to be upgraded!
Pretty nice!
--
Mass
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:35:36 +0200
Reyk Floeter wrote:
> but please a little bit before using it in production networks,
> iked(8) is not fully ready yet ;-).
I'm following your commit flow about it and is exiting, this is why I'm
still with OpenBSD ;)
--
Massimo
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:08:29 -0600
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> anyone is welcome to run the official isc stuff if they want. they're
> also welcome to drink the water in india. we don't mind when other
Please add this to theo.c ... it deserve it!
--
Mass
... I think it deserve at least an undeadly article ;)
Thanks guys!
--
Massimo
Hi guys,
I read on the OpenBSD PF's FAQ this statement:
Ruleset Tips
Filter the physical interface. As far as PF is concerned, network
traffic comes from the physical interface, not the CARP virtual
interface (i.e., carp0). So, write your rule sets accordingly. Don't
forget that an interface na
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:16:53 -0600
Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > It is more efficient. There is almost always enough entropy for
> > arandom, and if there isn't, you would have a hard time detecting
> > that.
>
> There is always enough. The generator will keep moving, until it has
^^
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:12:04 +0200
Henning Brauer wrote:
> and there's a reason why it is that way - I always found the idea of
> making a bgp router out of a common unix box by adding a userland bgp
> speaker only flawed. many things can only properly or at all be done
> at kernel level or with
Does it still doable nowadays to buy VIA padlock engine equipped
CPU/motherboard just to take advantage of the hw crypto acceleration?
I mean, to do IPSec stuff it's better to use a 1.5GHz VIA C7 CPU o an
ATOM one?
Do anyone have any experience?
Thanks in advantage
--
Massimo
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:32:48 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2010-10-19, Massimo Lusetti wrote:
> > Does it still doable nowadays to buy VIA padlock engine equipped
> > CPU/motherboard just to take advantage of the hw crypto
> > acceleration?
> >
> &g
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:35:19 +0200
Francesco Vollero wrote:
> Did you already check here[1] ? :)
I think I read misc@ daily plus tech@ and source-changes@ too and
that's the reason I'm asking.
I read (some time ago) VIA C7 has a crippled implementation of the
crypto flow instruction (if memory
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:30:31 +0100
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:45:18 +0200
> Massimo Lusetti wrote:
>
> > 1.5GHz VIA C7 CPU o an
> > ATOM one?
>
> No idea what the acceleration on this board brings to the party, but
> if you do then bare in mi
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:45:52 -0500
Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Steve Johnson
> wrote:
> > I had forgotten to also include the sysctl changes that I had made
> > as well, mostly based from calomel.org, which were the following:
> >
> > net.inet.ip.ttl=254
>
> I love this.
46 matches
Mail list logo
