freebsd-net  

Messages by Thread

• Re: Is it possible to force packets to go over a loopback cable? Tom Smyth
  • Re: Is it possible to force packets to go over a loopback cable? John Hay
• [Bug 291527] pf: NAT64 af-to generates garbage ICMP error packet when TTL exceeded bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291527] pf: NAT64 af-to generates garbage ICMP error packet when TTL exceeded bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 242081] dhclient doesn't exit on link down event, and devd is only configured to start dhclient on link up. bugzilla-noreply
• Re: RSS causing bad forwarding performance? Konstantin Belousov
  • Re: RSS causing bad forwarding performance? Kajetan Staszkiewicz
  • Re: RSS causing bad forwarding performance? Adrian Chadd
• [Bug 264114] net/wireguard-kmod: Crashes on 13.1-RELEASE: panic: vm_fault_lookup: fault on nofault entry, addr: 0 (wireguard) bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 291439] tcp_syncache.c incompatible with "options RSS" bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291439] tcp_syncache.c incompatible with "options RSS" bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291439] tcp_syncache.c incompatible with "options RSS" bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291439] tcp_syncache.c incompatible with "options RSS" bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 291437] wireguard: wg interfaces creates routes in incorrect fib when Table= specified bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291437] wireguard: wg interfaces creates routes in incorrect fib when Table= specified bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291420] [epair] Bad UDP packet checksum with epair(4) and txcsum enabled bugzilla-noreply
• Re: new LOR tcphash, in6_ifaddr_lock Jonathan T. Looney
  • Re: new LOR tcphash, in6_ifaddr_lock Jonathan T. Looney
  • Re: new LOR tcphash, in6_ifaddr_lock Bjoern A. Zeeb
  • Re: new LOR tcphash, in6_ifaddr_lock Bjoern A. Zeeb
• looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver Adrian Chadd
  • Re: looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver Florian Smeets
  • Re: looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver Adrian Chadd
  • Re: looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver Bernard Spil
  • Re: looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver Bernard Spil
  • Re: looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver Adrian Chadd
  • Re: looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver Bernard Spil
  • Re: looking for testers for if_rge - RTL8125/8126/8127 ethernet driver Mark Johnston
• [Bug 291145] UDP connected sockets cannot be disconnected bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291145] UDP connected sockets cannot be disconnected bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 291105] Intel i350 not receiving arp replies bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291105] Intel i350 not receiving arp replies bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291105] Intel i350 not receiving arp replies bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 291100] Reduce ARP cache time from 20 minutes to 60 seconds bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291100] Reduce ARP cache time from 20 minutes to 60 seconds bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291100] Reduce ARP cache time from 20 minutes to 60 seconds bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291100] Reduce ARP cache time from 20 minutes to 60 seconds bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291100] Reduce ARP cache time from 20 minutes to 60 seconds bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291100] Reduce ARP cache time from 20 minutes to 60 seconds bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291100] Reduce ARP cache time from 20 minutes to 60 seconds bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291100] Reduce ARP cache time from 20 minutes to 60 seconds bugzilla-noreply
• Re: vtnet is much improved in 16:current (nodebug) Cheng Cui
  • Re: vtnet is much improved in 16:current (nodebug) void
• [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 291003] Fix panic in in6_selecthlim() while creating bridge interface bugzilla-noreply
• setting ip address removes / replaces first of aliases Andriy Gapon
  • Re: setting ip address removes / replaces first of aliases Jamie Landeg-Jones
  • Re: setting ip address removes / replaces first of aliases Zhenlei Huang
• [Bug 290973] qlnxe: nic aggregation (using lagg) not working unless promiscuous mode is enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290973] qlnxe: nic aggregation (using lagg) not working unless promiscuous mode is enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290973] qlnxe: nic aggregation (using lagg) not working unless promiscuous mode is enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290973] qlnxe: nic aggregation (using lagg) not working unless promiscuous mode is enabled bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290973] qlnxe: nic aggregation (using lagg) not working unless promiscuous mode is enabled bugzilla-noreply
• Re: Hibernating sockets to support C10M Vadim Goncharov
• [Bug 290893] netlink: genl_register_family function does not release the lock if the family name is already in use bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290893] netlink: genl_register_family function does not release the lock if the family name is already in use bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290893] netlink: genl_register_family function does not release the lock if the family name is already in use bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290893] netlink: genl_register_family function does not release the lock if the family name is already in use bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290893] netlink: genl_register_family function does not release the lock if the family name is already in use bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290893] netlink: genl_register_family function does not release the lock if the family name is already in use bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290793] iovctl on mlx5en won't work bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290773] vtnet: Severe performance regression since D51686 bugzilla-noreply
• [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply
  • [Bug 290768] if_wg(4): handshake response has src and dst reverse bugzilla-noreply

• Earlier messages
• Later messages