-On [20010103 06:00], C. Stephen Gunn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:02:20 MST, Wes Peters wrote:
>
>> Sure, but it would be nice to take over ARP too.
>
>FWIW. Jeoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was looking at the NetBSD
>media-independant arp code. I'm not sure what he learned.
I
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:23:23 MST, Wes Peters wrote:
> > Well.. It's a change to ifconfig for normal interface configuraton.
>
> No, what I'm saying is that ifconfig would look exactly like it does now
> for standard IP-over-EthII and for vlan id, and would be extended to handle
> other configur
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:02:20 MST, Wes Peters wrote:
> Sure, but it would be nice to take over ARP too.
FWIW. Jeoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was looking at the NetBSD
media-independant arp code. I'm not sure what he learned.
- Steve
--
C. Stephen Gunn URL: http://www.wat
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Luigi Rizzo uttered the following:
> it should not be equal provided the 'high weight' flow has sufficient
> traffic going.
Both FTP transfers I've used for testing were around 60Kbps each. One done by
user dnld1, the other one by other user.
> Can you do an 'ipfw zero' befor
At 07:30 02/01/01 +0100, Miklos Niedermayer wrote:
>Hello,
>
>( > Attila Nagy)
>
> > > I have many routers with wavelan card working with freeBSD and i am
> > > trying without sucessfull use IPSTEALTH work i want whem one machine
> > > make traceroute dont show my router and go a way
> > sysctl -w
"C. Stephen Gunn" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 11:24:41PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
>
> > > I'm afraid to even contemplate the POLA and backward compatability
> > > issues involved.
> >
> > Why would we need to violate POLA? The obvious default would be to
> > extend ifconfig to configure
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > Doing link-layer encapsulation modules is really not very difficult.
> > I've written pretty much the full complement, covering ethernet (10,
> > 100, and 1000), FDDI/CDDI, token ring, ATM, and Frame Relay. (Chuck,
> > I can identify that prot
< said:
> box a multihomed host, not a VLAN forwarder/router. The latter
> would require a mechnism to bridge/forward/filter packets between
> independant 802.1q encapsulated interfaces.
We have that. They are just interfaces -- the kernel doesn't treat
them at all differently. (I can't speak
Thierry Herbelot wrote:
>
> Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > Thierry Herbelot wrote:
> > >
> > > Wes Peters wrote:
> > > >
> > > [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > > Doing link-layer encapsulation modules is really not very difficult.
> > > > I've written pretty much the full complement, covering ethernet (10,
> > >
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 11:31:17PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> Sorry to reply to my own message, but another thought hit me. Now that
> the swelling has gone down, I thought I should share it:
>
> This might even give us a start at a sticky problem that has been bugging
> VLAN switch makers fro
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 11:24:41PM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> > I'm afraid to even contemplate the POLA and backward compatability
> > issues involved.
>
> Why would we need to violate POLA? The obvious default would be to
> extend ifconfig to configure the new protocol types, and to assume
>
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 06:50:46AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > For example, you would no longer simply ``ifconfig xl'', but
> > > associate a netgraph link-layer node on top of the xl interface,
> > > and a netgraph interface node on top of the link-layer node, which
> > > would function
I notice that if_fxp.c seems to fail silently when unable to
allocate network buffers, perhaps the fact that the kernel can
be doing about 200 or more messages per-second makes me guess
that it's not helping things, especially when the box has a
serial console.
I'm taking the printf's out of my c
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Thierry Herbelot wrote:
> >
> > Wes Peters wrote:
> > >
> > What about a netgraph-enabled ATM NIC driver ? (this seems the missing
> > piece to get bridged Ethernet over RFC1483 encapsulation on ATM)
>
> Someone was going to do this but I think I sto
Thierry Herbelot wrote:
>
> Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > Thierry Herbelot wrote:
> > >
> > > Wes Peters wrote:
> > > >
> > > [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > > Doing link-layer encapsulation modules is really not very difficult.
> > > > I've written pretty much the full complement, covering ethernet (10,
> > >
Thierry Herbelot wrote:
>
> Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Doing link-layer encapsulation modules is really not very difficult.
> > I've written pretty much the full complement, covering ethernet (10,
> > 100, and 1000), FDDI/CDDI, token ring, ATM, and Frame Relay. (Chuck,
>
> What abou
"C. Stephen Gunn" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:33:36 EST, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
> > Actually, no, it's not what you want (although the underlying code is
> > broken enough to let it ``work'' anyway). What you want is to fix the
> > parent network interface driver to indicate its readine
Wes Peters wrote:
>
> "C. Stephen Gunn" wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:54:19 PST, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> > > > The current VLAN (and Ethernet) implementaiton in FreeBSD needs work.
> > > > FreeBSD should should handle multiple ethernet encapsulations on
> > > > the same physical inte
Updating my ipfw/natd system to 4.2-Release worked.
MikeC
-Original Message-
From: Blaz Zupan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:18 AM
To: Michael C. Cambria
Cc: [EMAIL
Alex Pilosov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, C. Stephen Gunn wrote:
>
> > For example, you would no longer simply ``ifconfig xl'', but
> > associate a netgraph link-layer node on top of the xl interface,
> > and a netgraph interface node on top of the link-layer node, which
> > would function (mo
"C. Stephen Gunn" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:54:19 PST, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > > The current VLAN (and Ethernet) implementaiton in FreeBSD needs work.
> > > FreeBSD should should handle multiple ethernet encapsulations on
> > > the same physical interface, and relay packets to/from
21 matches
Mail list logo
