Hi all,
I am replying to this thread as I see some resemblance between issue I
experience and the quickly rising netlivelocks value.
On 24/06/14 3:08 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
Kapetanakis Giannis [bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr] wrote:
On 23/06/14 21:33, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Chris Cappuccio
On 23/06/14 21:33, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net [2014-06-23 20:24]:
I have a sandy bridge Xeon box with PF NAT that handles a daily 200
to 700Mbps. It has a single myx interface using OpenBSD 5.5 (not
current). It does nothing but PF NAT and related routing. No
Kapetanakis Giannis [bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr] wrote:
On 23/06/14 21:33, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net [2014-06-23 20:24]:
I have a sandy bridge Xeon box with PF NAT that handles a daily 200
to 700Mbps. It has a single myx interface using OpenBSD 5.5 (not
current).
On 24/06/14 3:08 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
Kapetanakis Giannis [bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr] wrote:
On 23/06/14 21:33, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net [2014-06-23 20:24]:
I have a sandy bridge Xeon box with PF NAT that handles a daily 200
to 700Mbps. It has a single
* Adam Thompson athom...@athompso.net [2014-06-23 07:20]:
On 14-06-21 01:03 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
Adam Thompson [athom...@athompso.net] wrote:
Yes, OT... But unless you've chosen to do something silly (like enabling
MVRP, or blindly allowing all VLANs to an untrusted host) saying VLANs
* Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net [2014-06-21 20:05]:
Right now all routers and firewalls should
be on SP kernels or you will actually have worse performance.
This is not true any more and hasn't been for some time.
It is, however, true that the extra cores buy you little to nothing
for the
Henning Brauer [lists-open...@bsws.de] wrote:
* Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net [2014-06-21 20:05]:
Right now all routers and firewalls should
be on SP kernels or you will actually have worse performance.
This is not true any more and hasn't been for some time.
It is, however, true
* Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net [2014-06-23 20:24]:
Henning Brauer [lists-open...@bsws.de] wrote:
* Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net [2014-06-21 20:05]:
Right now all routers and firewalls should
be on SP kernels or you will actually have worse performance.
This is not true any
On 14-06-21 01:03 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
Adam Thompson [athom...@athompso.net] wrote:
Yes, OT... But unless you've chosen to do something silly (like enabling MVRP, or blindly allowing
all VLANs to an untrusted host) saying VLANs aren't secure is about as useful as
ICMP isn't secure.
Adam Thompson [athom...@athompso.net] wrote:
Yes, OT... But unless you've chosen to do something silly (like enabling
MVRP, or blindly allowing all VLANs to an untrusted host) saying VLANs
aren't secure is about as useful as ICMP isn't secure.
Please explain how VLANs are not secure when you
Hello ML,
Thursday, June 19, 2014, 2:21:38 AM, you wrote:
Mm I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet
Mm interface (1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if in
Mm terms of performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to have one
Mm subnet per
* Boris Goldberg bo...@twopoint.com [2014-06-20 15:51]:
There is no real security separation between vlans.
sigh. stop spreading myths from the last century.
Also OT - is OBSD handling 10 gigabit interfaces at full capacity
already?
yes
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
Yes, OT... But unless you've chosen to do something silly (like enabling MVRP,
or blindly allowing all VLANs to an untrusted host) saying VLANs aren't
secure is about as useful as ICMP isn't secure.
Please explain how VLANs are not secure when you have control of the devices on
both ends of an
Hello,
I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet interface
(1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if in terms of
performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to have one subnet per
ethernet interface like I have now or to have the four subnets on
Quoting ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com:
I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet
interface (1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if
in terms of performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to
have one subnet per ethernet interface like I have now
On 14-06-19 02:43 AM, Mike Jackson wrote:
Quoting ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com:
I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet
interface (1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if in
terms of performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to have
one subnet
* ML mail mlnos...@yahoo.com [2014-06-19 09:22]:
I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet
interface (1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if in
terms of performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to have one
subnet per ethernet interface like I
17 matches
Mail list logo
