Romain Berrendonner wrote:
>
> Le 2001-12-21 09:36 UTC-0600, Randall Stewart a ecrit:
> >
> > Yes, we are very very close... currently I am looking at
> > some final testing of a few features and then we have
> > a decision to make... your input would be nice ...
> >
>
> I hope I'll have some mo
Jim:
Comments below :>
Jim Fleming wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply. Here are a couple of comments.
>
> We can only fit ICMP, UDP and TCP in IPv4++
> Does SCTP run inside UDP ?
> http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/
> http://www.RepliGate.net
>
No, SCTP is IP protocol number 132 (if I rememb
Le 2001-12-21 09:36 UTC-0600, Randall Stewart a ecrit:
>
> Yes, we are very very close... currently I am looking at
> some final testing of a few features and then we have
> a decision to make... your input would be nice ...
>
I hope I'll have some more time to take a look at this while
on vaca
* Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011221 08:27] wrote:
>
> I think it should be more like:
>
> if (ap->a_events & POLLIN)
> ap->a_events = (ap->a_events & ~POLLIN) | POLLIN_IGNORE_EOF;
>
> We can't pass in flags that we don't really care about (POLLIN in
> this case) since
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 09:42:30AM -0600, Randall Stewart wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I have a question. I have been working to test the new
> sctp_drain function I am adding and have had a very difficult
> time getting the drain function to be called by the mbuf system...
>
> Now here is what I most
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Thomas Zenker wrote:
> to follow up myself :-(
>
> the situation changed, I have tried to install the new release now
> on the final embedded hardware. It is to mention, that this hardware
> is working with fbsd 4.3 from july without any problems in about
> 50 equipments. Up
Hi all:
I have a question. I have been working to test the new
sctp_drain function I am adding and have had a very difficult
time getting the drain function to be called by the mbuf system...
Now here is what I most observe from some of the test cases
I am building:
A) All inbound packets get a
Hi all:
Sorry for the delay in responding my head is deep into
getting this thing out the door :>
Yes, we are very very close... currently I am looking at
some final testing of a few features and then we have
a decision to make... your input would be nice ...
1) We have the UDP model mostly com
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011217 07:10] wrote:
> > > I'm not happy with frobbing the socket state. I suggest frobbing the
> > > events mask instead. Either use a flag to tell sopoll() to ignore
> > > SS_CANTRCVMORE, or use new events POL
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 02:35:03PM +0100, Thomas Zenker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 03:20:51AM -0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> .. deleted
> >
> > RFC 2581 suggests that 4 is a good value (well, not exactly 4, they have a
> > formula which comes out to about 4 in most cases.) I'm inclined to
Hi;
I have read (I don't know where) that delayed ack has
a problem in freebsd-stable and suggested to turn it
off. But I had a situation that I can't connect to
www.suse.com:80 (for example) but after enabling it I
can connect to that site. Normally with delayed_ack
turned off I am receiving Pus
11 matches
Mail list logo
