--- Steve Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>
> >Paul Herman wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Not true. Although some bugs have been fixed in 4.3, FreeBSD's
> >>delayed ACKs will still degrade your performance dramatically in
> >>some cases.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm sorry, but such st
At 08:59 17/10/2002 +0200, Ruben van Staveren wrote:
>Isn't this something that can overcome the current shortcomings of jail(2) ?
>(the no other stacks/no raw sockets problem)
I've been tempted at looking into jail-ifying raw sockets as well, but time
has precluded me from doing so (and from tr
Hi freebsd-net!
Help me fix trouble with wireless link:
/sbin/ifconfig wi0 inet 192.168.1.1/24 channel 7 nwkey secret ssid mynet
/var/log/messages:
Oct 17 16:57:28 dom1 /kernel: pccard: card inserted, slot 0
Oct 17 16:57:28 dom1 pccardd[41]: Card "Lucent Technologies"("WaveLAN/IEEE") [Ve
rsion 0
Hi.
I'm testing mpd 3.9 with FreeBSD 4.6.2. The performance of transfers
using W2k clients is much better than using XP or Win9x (in same
conditions). Are there any parameters to adjust or it's problem of pptp
client implementation?
Thanks in advance.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PRO
Hi,
you can try:
set ccp yes mpp-stateless
or you can try to comment out this line. I had similar problems some
weeks ago with this option.
bye,
Francisco J. Medina Jimenez schrieb:
Hi.
I'm testing mpd 3.9 with FreeBSD 4.6.2. The performance of transfers
using W2k clients is much better th
Hi all,
I'm setting up a 3 NICs bridge using Intel cards under FreeBSD 4.7. The
trunk has traffic with three different VLAN tags (111,222,800). I have
802.1q aware switches behind my two internal interfaces and they should
only get some tagged frames (ipfw use planned to get rid of unwa
>
> Less :-) Let me tell you tomorrow, don't have the numbers here right now.
I seem to get about 5-6 packets on an interrupt. Is this tunable? At
50kpps the card generates 10k interrupts a second. Sending generates
way less. This is about 300Mbps so with the average packet size of
750 there shoul
I apologize for not CC'ing originally!
I have a network/firewall where I want to nat an entire network. However, I
also want nat traffic to one remote host in particular out on the internet to
be IPsec'd as well.
[A] (10.x) [B] (Nat) [C] (Real IP)
I've setup IPsec on both machines, and from eit
Charles Henrich wrote:
I have a network/firewall where I want to nat an entire network. However, I
also want nat traffic to one remote host in particular out on the internet to
be IPsec'd as well.
[A] (10.x) [B] (Nat) [C] (Real IP)
There was a thread on -hackers named "VPN Routing through gif
> > I have a network/firewall where I want to nat an entire network. However,
> > I also want nat traffic to one remote host in particular out on the
> > internet to be IPsec'd as well.
> >
> > [A] (10.x) [B] (Nat) [C] (Real IP)
>
> There was a thread on -hackers named "VPN Routing through gif (
Charles Henrich wrote:
The nat daemon does not log any rejections of the packet, however in my kernel
log, I see a
Oct 17 17:23:51 dmz /kernel: Connection attempt to TCP B:3283 from C:22
Your packets don't seem to reach natd after IPsec inbound processing.
Looks like ipfw processing happens be
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:55:24PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
...
> I seem to get about 5-6 packets on an interrupt. Is this tunable? At
just reading the source code, yes, it appears that the card has
support for delayed rx/tx interrupts -- see RIDV and TIDV definitions
and usage in sys/dev/em/*
Nikolai Saoukh writes:
> | That doesn't look so good. But it doesn't look "crazy" from the
> | netgraph side, just like a lot of packets are being dropped.
> | There must be something specific about your setup that causes this.
>
> Specific is MPPE. I have the same problem here.
> I am digging the
Michael Bretterklieber writes:
> But I think it will better to have something like this in the mpd.conf:
> - gobal switch to enable radius support.
> - switches for the different layers (link, bundle) where radius can be
> used (because Radius can more the Authentication)
That makes sense :-)
-A
Careful here. Read the errata sheet!! I do not believe the em driver uses
these parameters, and possibly for a good reason.
Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:owner-freebsd-net@;FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Luigi Rizzo
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:12 PM
>
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:49:04AM -0400, Jim McGrath wrote:
> Careful here. Read the errata sheet!! I do not believe the em driver uses
> these parameters, and possibly for a good reason.
as if i had access to the data sheets :)
cheers
luigi
> Jim
>
> > -Original Message--
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 09:10:54PM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote:
| > is the huge amount of CCP Reset Requests from win client.
|
| Hmm, try enabling the mpp-stateless option.
When on direct modem link the win client refuses mpp-stateless.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubs
A while back someone was fishing for a project to take on and someone
suggested a complete TCP/IP implementation in netgraph. I found the
idea interesting and am considering taking a shot at it. My main goal
in all this is to learn as much as possible and at this point I'm just
reading.
While th
Steve Tremblett wrote:
> A while back someone was fishing for a project to take on and someone
> suggested a complete TCP/IP implementation in netgraph. I found the
> idea interesting and am considering taking a shot at it. My main goal
> in all this is to learn as much as possible and at this po
I do not think that you need a raw IP netgraph node. Something similar
already exists. Why not use the ng_ksocket in order to open a raw IP socket
under your TCP node ?
Vincent
Le Jeudi 17 Octobre 2002 20:59, vous avez écrit :
> Steve Tremblett wrote:
> > A while back someone was fishing for a
Vincent Jardin wrote:
> I do not think that you need a raw IP netgraph node. Something similar
> already exists. Why not use the ng_ksocket in order to open a raw IP socket
> under your TCP node ?
Because the packet will never get to your protocol processing, unless
you turn of standard TCP altoge
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Vincent Jardin wrote:
> > I do not think that you need a raw IP netgraph node. Something similar
> > already exists. Why not use the ng_ksocket in order to open a raw IP socket
> > under your TCP node ?
>
> Because the packet will never get to your pr
Julian Elischer wrote:
> > There is also the m_pullup() issue of the TCP protocol that is
> > being passed IP datagrams which may be frags of TCP packets, in
> > order to get the full TCP header, with options.
>
> The tcp code should handle this anyway.
It should, but it won't. The issue is when
Steve Tremblett writes:
> A while back someone was fishing for a project to take on and someone
> suggested a complete TCP/IP implementation in netgraph. I found the
> idea interesting and am considering taking a shot at it. My main goal
> in all this is to learn as much as possible and at this p
"J. 'LoneWolf' Mattsson" wrote:
> At 08:59 17/10/2002 +0200, Ruben van Staveren wrote:
> >Isn't this something that can overcome the current shortcomings of jail(2) ?
> >(the no other stacks/no raw sockets problem)
It should be possible even to run multiple jails within each virtual image, if
one
25 matches
Mail list logo
