Re: [RFC/RFT] projects/ipsec

2016-12-27 Thread Ermal Luçi
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 27.12.2016 16:15, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> In it's initial state if_ipsec allows to use only one set of >>> encryption parameters (because only one sainfo anonyumous is >>> possible), so at this time it doesn't

Re: panic: negative refcount after dhclient during boot

2015-07-09 Thread Ermal Luçi
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Ermal Luçi e...@freebsd.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Rink Springer r...@freebsd.org wrote: Hi eri@, On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:21:54AM +0200, Rink Springer wrote: On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:45:25PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: On Jul 5

Re: panic: negative refcount after dhclient during boot

2015-07-08 Thread Ermal Luçi
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Rink Springer r...@freebsd.org wrote: Hi eri@, On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 09:21:54AM +0200, Rink Springer wrote: On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:45:25PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: On Jul 5, 2015, at 8:16, Rink Springer r...@freebsd.org wrote: Hi all,

[PATCH] SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT behaviour

2013-11-29 Thread Ermal Luçi
Hello, since SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT are supposed to allow two daemons to share the same port and possibly listening ip, you would expect if you bind two daemon with such options to same port to see the same traffic on both! This is not the case today. Only multicast sockets seem to have

Re: [PATCH] SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT behaviour

2013-11-29 Thread Ermal Luçi
Moskalenko mom040...@gmail.comwrote: Tim, you are wrong. Read what is multicast definition, and read how UDP and TCP sockets work in Linux 3.9+ kernels. Oleg . On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Tim Kientzle kient...@freebsd.orgwrote: On Nov 29, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Ermal Luçi e...@freebsd.org wrote

Re: [PATCH] SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT behaviour

2013-11-29 Thread Ermal Luçi
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Tim Kientzle kient...@freebsd.org wrote: On Nov 29, 2013, at 4:04 AM, Ermal Luçi e...@freebsd.org wrote: Hello, since SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT are supposed to allow two daemons to share the same port and possibly listening ip … These flags

Re: [PATCH] SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT behaviour

2013-11-29 Thread Ermal Luçi
Also some discussions and improvements to it. http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/net/2013-09/msg00165.html On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Ermal Luçi e...@freebsd.org wrote: Well seems Dragonfly has some version of it already from commit [1]. In FreeBSD there is the framework

Re: [PATCH] SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT behaviour

2013-11-29 Thread Ermal Luçi
And some better marketing from Dragonfly about it http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?29,241283,241283 :) On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Ermal Luçi e...@freebsd.org wrote: Also some discussions and improvements to it. http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/net/2013-09/msg00165.html

Re: forwarding/ipfw/pf evolution (in pps) on -current

2013-04-26 Thread Ermal Luçi
Hello, would you mind running a performance test with a snapshot of tomorrow from this link http://snapshots.pfsense.org/ There are some optimizations in pfSense and it would be nicer to compare to FreeBSD itself how it behaves. That is before the lock changes in HEAD since its FreeBSD 8.

Re-sizable UFS project

2012-11-27 Thread Ermal Luçi
Hello, some time ago the FreeBSD Foundation published/approved a project for live resizing of UFS filesystems. Does any know if the project was successful and any outcome from it? -- Ermal ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Re-sizable UFS project

2012-11-27 Thread Ermal Luçi
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Alex Dupre a...@freebsd.org wrote: Ermal Luçi ha scritto: some time ago the FreeBSD Foundation published/approved a project for live resizing of UFS filesystems. Does any know if the project was successful and any outcome from it? http

Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.

2012-11-21 Thread Ermal Luçi
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Gleb Smirnoff gleb...@freebsd.org wrote: Mark, On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Mark Martinec wrote: M For one thing, I'm desperately awaiting NAT64 support (the 'af-to' M translation rule in newer pf (5.1?), committed on 2011-10). Backport this

Re: Upgrading FreeBSD to use the NEW pf syntax.

2012-11-21 Thread Ermal Luçi
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Gleb Smirnoff gleb...@freebsd.org wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:44:13PM +0100, Ermal Lu?i wrote: E Cherry-picking would be when tehre is reasonable similarities. E Also another argument to do this would be simplicity on locking as well as E i told you