On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez wrote:
Hello,
Accidentally I got into this PDF:
http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~awm/slides/masterclass2006/monitor-hardware.pdf
Quite interesting results, and nice future work. Has anybody seen it
already?
I believe that there is a FreeBSD develope
Hello ALL!
I have a problem with CARP on FreeBSD 6.2 in the following scheme:
+--+ +---++-+
| A| | B|| C |
| vlan20 |-//->| vlan20 vlan10 |-//-| vlan10 |
+---
Ok, I have patched and rebuild the kernel. Looks ok now.
Here some info:
media 100baseTX mediaopt full-duplex
serverA (Broadcom BCM5705K) <192.168.254.1/30> (iperf server)
serverB (Broadcom BCM5704) <192.168.254.2/30> (iperf client)
# iperf -c 192.168.254.1 -t 60 -i 5
--
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, MQ wrote:
2006/12/14, Oleg Bulyzhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:55:51AM +, MQ wrote:
> 2006/12/12, Oleg Bulyzhin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:54:01AM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> >> Forwarding to net@ list and to Oleg, wh
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Randall Stewart wrote:
Well.. no I believe someone (was in Lin) mentioned that you can get a
live-lock if you allow a reduction.. and thus the mbuf clusters were NOT
allowed to be reduced..
I messed around with this a bit when
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Mike Silbersack wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez wrote:
Accidentally I got into this PDF:
http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~awm/slides/masterclass2006/monitor-hardware.pdf
Quite interesting results, and nice future work. Has anybody seen it
already?
I bel
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Oleg Bulyzhin wrote:
Sorry for the late reply - i was AFK for some time and didnt read mails.
Patch against 6.2R attached, please let me know does it helps or not.
I didn't test the old version of this since I have too many local changes
in my non-6.x versions. I might tes
This change has now been committed on -CURRENT (reviewed by bz@) so it
is now settling in.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
It was suggested I post this to freebsd-net rather than isp and
questions to get a different caliber of replies, here goes;
I've been running some tests with using FreeBSD to filter and rate
limit traffic. My first thoughts were to goto the latest stable release,
which was 6.1 at the time.
Hello,
When we (Rink and I) ported FreeBSD to the Xbox, Rink patched the kernel
to allow the nve(4) driver to attach properly. I recently removed the
dust from my Xbox and installed FreeBSD on it. This time I started using
the nfe(4) driver.
When compared to the nve(4) driver, the nfe(4) seems a
Justin Robertson wrote:
Splitting the task into a transparent filtering bridge
with a separate routing box appears to clear it up entirely.
how does that differ from using mac level ipfw?
i.e. turning on filtering at the NIC (layer 2).
(have you tried doing that?)
__
Hi people,
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:43:14PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote:
> http://g-rave.nl/junk/freebsd-icsphy.diff
I'll take a look at this; I've noticed mostly timeouts on the nfe(4)
interface which could be attributed to this fact.
Thank you for your work; whenever I find a working IDE
Jinmei-san,
Thank you for the response.
What I wonder is how one would define the "typical, default" case.
Although RFC 2461/2462 does not say much about it, I am having a hard
time seeing in which case it would be beneficial to advertise deprecated
prefixes as preferred by default.
On the other
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 01:31:39AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Oleg Bulyzhin wrote:
>
> >Sorry for the late reply - i was AFK for some time and didnt read mails.
> >Patch against 6.2R attached, please let me know does it helps or not.
>
> I didn't test the old version of this
Err, forgot to reply to -net, at anyrate, layer 2 isn't useful as it
doesn't undertand ip addresses, ports, protocols, etc.
Julian Elischer wrote:
Justin Robertson wrote:
Splitting the task into a transparent filtering bridge with a
separate routing box appears to clear it up entirely.
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:43:14PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When we (Rink and I) ported FreeBSD to the Xbox, Rink patched the kernel
> to allow the nve(4) driver to attach properly. I recently removed the
> dust from my Xbox and installed FreeBSD on it. This time I started using
Hello,
I want to solicit your attention to recieve money on my behalf.
The purpose of my contacting you is because you live in western world.
When you reply this message,i will send you the full details and more
information about myself and the funds.
My personal email is: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Th
Justin Robertson wrote:
Err, forgot to reply to -net, at anyrate, layer 2 isn't useful as it
doesn't undertand ip addresses, ports, protocols, etc.
filtereing at the NIC (sysctl net.link.ether.ipfw=1 or something
similar) lets you do layer 3 filtereing at the NIC layer..
Julian Elischer wr
So in a sense I should be able to do away with the transparent bridge.
However, 6.x in any mode (bridge or not) was still incapable of pushing
the traffic that 4.x could. This would certainly help remove one machine
from the mix, but still requires running 4.x to get any real
performance. :-\
I count no objections and +1 in favour from Andre.
To maintain POLA, I will decapitate (Argh, pun) it from HEAD with no MFC
to begin with.
Arguments in favour:
* mrouted was removed from the base system.
* PIM does not use MROUTING's IPIP tunnels, and PIM is regarded as the
standard these day
20 matches
Mail list logo
