On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 04:37:40AM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Dear networkers,
>
> does anyone can give me a hint? I want to inject some traffic with
> a specific destination to netgraph.
> For example I want to route all traffic with dst 10.0.0.0/8 to my
> netgraph node, whereever it cam
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:09, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:56:24PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > > The recent emails about the bridge code from NetBSD made me interested in
> > > using netgraph to run snort on the combined traf
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:35:03 +,
> "Mónica Domingues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I'am configuring a SSM multicast router, for that I'am using pim6sd.
>So, I'am FreeBSD with kame snap kit and I had install pim6sd.
>At the moment, Itrying to configure the routing daemon and
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:02:31AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:09, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:56:24PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > > > The recent emails about the bridge code from NetB
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 10:37:38AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
R> > does anyone can give me a hint? I want to inject some traffic with
R> > a specific destination to netgraph.
R> > For example I want to route all traffic with dst 10.0.0.0/8 to my
R> > netgraph node, whereever it came from - ca
Has anyone looked at porting NetBSD/OpenBSD's bridging code?
It is my opinion that it is superior in features and standards
compliancy to FreeBSD's current bridging methods.
_// Sten Daniel Sørsdal
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebs
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:40:15PM +0200, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
>
> Has anyone looked at porting NetBSD/OpenBSD's bridging code?
a port was submitted a couple of days ago and we are considering
its inclusion
luigi
> It is my opinion that it is superior in features and standards
> complian
Pardon me if this is well covered ground, but I've tried
some targeted archive searching, and not found it.
I have a DLink DWL-650 card, I believe it's a PRISM3
chipset card. It's the currently available bone-stock, plain
16-bit 11Mbps card running @ 5V. My primary purpose
for this card was to u
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:28:50PM -0400, Peter Serwe wrote:
> Pardon me if this is well covered ground, but I've tried
> some targeted archive searching, and not found it.
>
> I have a DLink DWL-650 card, I believe it's a PRISM3
> chipset card. It's the currently available bone-stock, plain
> 16
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
Serious problems
Non-critical problems
S Submitted Tracker Resp. Description
---
o [2003/07/11] kern/54383 net NFS root configurations without dynamic
I am a bit unclear -- how do we allocate if_index values for
network interfaces ?
I thought the strategy was allocate them sequentially, and
only reuse numbers at the top of the allocated range.
But then i see if_findindex() is quite complicated, and
seems to look for hints using resource_string_v
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 11:09:12AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> I am a bit unclear -- how do we allocate if_index values for
> network interfaces ?
> I thought the strategy was allocate them sequentially, and
> only reuse numbers at the top of the allocated range.
> But then i see if_findindex()
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:02:31AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:09, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:56:24PM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrot
>From memory,
It's completely un-needed except that some standards want to access
interfaces by index for statitics purposes.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
> I am a bit unclear -- how do we allocate if_index values for
> network interfaces ?
> I thought the strategy was allocate t
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:28:23PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> It's completely un-needed except that some standards want to access
> interfaces by index for statitics purposes.
they're "un-needed" in much the same way that statically assigning disk
numbers is "un-needed". sure, the disks don'
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:43:30PM -0700, Bill Fumerola wrote:
...
>
> they're "un-needed" in much the same way that statically assigning disk
> numbers is "un-needed". sure, the disks don't light on fire without it,
> but some consistancy and persistance does make things nice.
...
> i disagree th
16 matches
Mail list logo
