On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 01:34:46PM +0800, Kevin Lo wrote:
K> I tested your patch on FreeBSD/arm (OpenBlocks AX3), it seems to be working
K> fine.
Thanks a lot, Kevin!
--
Totus tuus, Glebius.
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.fre
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:00:43PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:29:43PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> M> > Sorry for top quoting, this is to annoy you :) I got zero
> M> > replies on the below email during a week. I'd really appreciate
> M> > testing on different pl
If I do "zdb -dd mypool", It shows me the data from entire pool and all its
datasets, when in fact I only want the list from the mypool dataset. The
dataset ID is 21, so is there any syntax like:
# zdb -dd ID=21
I'm not trying to filter the output - I'm trying to dozdb -d mypool
object_id "", w
On 29 Jul 2014, at 20:00, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:29:43PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> M> > Sorry for top quoting, this is to annoy you :) I got zero
> M> > replies on the below email during a week. I'd really appreciate
> M> > testing on different platforms. Any take
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 07:29:43PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
M> > Sorry for top quoting, this is to annoy you :) I got zero
M> > replies on the below email during a week. I'd really appreciate
M> > testing on different platforms. Any takers?
M> OK, it works on an Raspberry pi running r269231 wi
On 29 Jul 2014, at 12:41, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for top quoting, this is to annoy you :) I got zero
> replies on the below email during a week. I'd really appreciate
> testing on different platforms. Any takers?
OK, it works on an Raspberry pi running r269231 with your patch.
Th
On 29 July 2014 09:54, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Mark Martinec > wrote:
>
>> me wrote:
>>
>>> we are talking about NAT64 (IPv6-only datacenter's path to a legacy
>>> world),
>>> and NPT66 (prefix transalation). I doubt anyone had a traditional NAT in
>>> mind.
>>>
>>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
> me wrote:
>
>> we are talking about NAT64 (IPv6-only datacenter's path to a legacy
>> world),
>> and NPT66 (prefix transalation). I doubt anyone had a traditional NAT in
>> mind.
>>
>
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> No, all of the messages in th
me wrote:
we are talking about NAT64 (IPv6-only datacenter's path to a legacy
world),
and NPT66 (prefix transalation). I doubt anyone had a traditional NAT
in mind.
Kevin Oberman wrote:
No, all of the messages in the thread are specific about NAT66, not
NPT66.
NPT66 may have real value. I ha
In message
, Kevin Oberman writes:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Darren Reed wrote:
>
> > On 27/07/2014 4:43 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > > In message <53d395e4.1070...@fastmail.net>, Darren Reed writes:
> > >> On 24/07/2014 1:42 AM, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > > But, lack of ipv6 fragment pro
On 29 Jul 2014, at 12:41, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Sorry for top quoting, this is to annoy you :) I got zero
> replies on the below email during a week. I'd really appreciate
> testing on different platforms. Any takers?
I can try to test it on a raspberry pi, building a patched kernel
rig
Yet another top reply to everyone.
If anyone is interested in maintaining our FreeBSD version of pf
and taking strategically right (my opinion!) steps in its life, here
is a short TODO list:
1) Make Peter and FreeBSD cluster happy. Work on the IPv6 fragments
handling. IMHO, the right way woul
Replying to the top of the thread, but the text is actually
reply to those people in the thread, who eager for import of
new pf from OpenBSD.
So, I claim that there is a vast and silent majority of people
who simply use pf and do not want the hassle with broken pf.conf.
I also claim that there
Am Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:19:50 -0700
Peter Wemm schrieb:
> Are you using pf and IPv6 by any chance? Since you mentioned the FreeBSD.org
> domain,
> DNSSEC and IPv6 triggers fragments. Just a thought.
>
> --
> Peter Wemm. pe...@wemm.org
>
>
> > On 28 Jul 2014, at 6:50 am, O. Hartmann wrote:
Hi!
Sorry for top quoting, this is to annoy you :) I got zero
replies on the below email during a week. I'd really appreciate
testing on different platforms. Any takers?
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:27:25AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
T> Hi!
T>
T> we've got a lot of common code in sys/*/*/
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:30:59PM -0400, Mike. wrote:
M> |> imho, the root problem here is that an effort to implement a
M> single
M> |> feature improvement (multi-threading) has caused the FreeBSD
M> version
M> |> of pf to apparently reach a near-unmaintainable position in the
M> |> FreeBSD commu
Darren,
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 09:36:06PM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
D> Never mistake silence for consent.
D>
D> The vast majority of people don't know pf is outdated and broken on
D> FreeBSD because they don't know what they're missing and likely aren't
D> using IPv6 yet. The moment you
On 29/07/2014 8:07 AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
...
> And all IPv6 NAT is evil and should be cast into (demonic residence
> of your choosing) on sight!
For the most part, I agree with you but the problem is "checkbox"
comparisons. That IPv6 shouldn't be NAT'd is why I didn't implement
it for such a lo
On 2014-07-29 0:07, Kevin Oberman wrote:
And all IPv6 NAT is evil and should be cast into (demonic residence of your
choosing) on sight!
NAT on IPv6 serves no useful purpose at all. It only serves to complicate
things and make clueless security officers happy. It adds zero security. It
is a gre
19 matches
Mail list logo
