On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 10:45:25AM +1000, Norberto Meijome wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:07:37 +0100 (BST)
> Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds a bit like something is running out of reserved ports to use -- the
> > credentials error may mean that a port number >1023 was us
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:07:37 +0100 (BST)
Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Eric L. Anderson wrote:
>
> > What is the limit of NFS mounts a FreeBSD server can make and how do you
> > modify this limit?
> >
> > The only reference I could find to this question on th
Mike Karels wrote:
I think that the possible courses of action are:
1/ Ignore further incoming data, but ACK it.
(this is basically what the userland code does in this case)
This could lead to indefinite data transfer, while misleading the sender
into thinking the data are being delive
Here's one example where MTU!=MRU would be useful.
Think of asymmetric bandwith-limited ADSL links. Lower MTU would allow
lower TX latency for high priority packets when upstream is saturated,
yet large MRU on the downstream would be great for downloads.
Right now with 6.2 one has to trade off l
Julian Elischer wrote:
Eli Dart wrote:
see below...
Julian Elischer wrote:
Eli Dart wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
So was any decision reached on this issue - will FreeBSD changed
to accept a packet on an interface that is larger than the mtu on
that interface?
If possible, I'd like to s
> I think that the possible courses of action are:
> 1/ Ignore further incoming data, but ACK it.
> (this is basically what the userland code does in this case)
This could lead to indefinite data transfer, while misleading the sender
into thinking the data are being delivered.
> 2/ Stop AC
Eli Dart wrote:
see below...
Julian Elischer wrote:
Eli Dart wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
So was any decision reached on this issue - will FreeBSD changed
to accept a packet on an interface that is larger than the mtu on
that interface?
If possible, I'd like to see the ability to enforc
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Max Laier wrote:
So far I have had 0 (zero) reports of problems since this thread began.
Could people using uid/gid/jail rules with ipfw or pf on 7.x *please* try
running their firewalls without debug.mpsa
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Paul Allen wrote:
From Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:36:50AM -0700:
Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Max Laier wrote:
So far I have had 0 (zero) reports of problems since this thread began.
Could people using uid/gid/jail rules wi
>From Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:36:50AM
>-0700:
> Robert Watson wrote:
> >
> >On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Max Laier wrote:
> >
> >So far I have had 0 (zero) reports of problems since this thread began.
> >Could people using uid/gid/jail rules with ipfw or pf on 7.x *pl
see below...
Julian Elischer wrote:
Eli Dart wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
So was any decision reached on this issue - will FreeBSD changed
to accept a packet on an interface that is larger than the mtu on
that interface?
If possible, I'd like to see the ability to enforce interface MTU
f
Eli Dart wrote:
Stephen Clark wrote:
So was any decision reached on this issue - will FreeBSD changed to
accept a packet on an
interface that is larger than the mtu on that interface?
If possible, I'd like to see the ability to enforce interface MTU for
received packets preserved in a s
Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Max Laier wrote:
So far I have had 0 (zero) reports of problems since this thread began.
Could people using uid/gid/jail rules with ipfw or pf on 7.x *please*
try running their firewalls without debug.mpsafenet -- ignore the
witness warnings and/or d
Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
Julian, good day.
Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:33:28AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
replying to myself.. the comment in the code in question said:
/*-*/
/** if the elaborateTCPFin option is set, keeps
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eli Dart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If possible, I'd like to see the ability to enforce interface MTU for
> received packets preserved in a sysctl if it is removed for the
> default config...
I'm curious, why do you want this feature?
- --
David
Stephen Clark wrote:
So was any decision reached on this issue - will FreeBSD changed to
accept a packet on an
interface that is larger than the mtu on that interface?
If possible, I'd like to see the ability to enforce interface MTU for
received packets preserved in a sysctl if it is re
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Eric L. Anderson wrote:
What is the limit of NFS mounts a FreeBSD server can make and how do you
modify this limit?
The only reference I could find to this question on the FreeBSD lists is
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-July/051947.html
I hav
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
Another way to deal with the problem is not to send the FIN's after the one
provoked by the closed descriptor. As I understand, the SS_NOFDREF check is
a optimization to avoid processing unneeded data in the TCP stack. So we
may just silently bla
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, 11:37-0400, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
>
> Neither appear to support extracting the setsockopt(2) list. lsof(8) to the
> rescue:
>
> $ sudo lsof -T f | grep -i ACCEPTF | more
>
> httpd 38396 root 3u IPv6 0xc2824378 0t0 TCP *:http
> (SO=ACCEPTCONN,ACCEPTFILTER,KEEPALIVE,PQLEN=0,
Neither appear to support extracting the setsockopt(2) list. lsof(8) to
the rescue:
$ sudo lsof -T f | grep -i ACCEPTF | more
httpd 38396 root 3u IPv6 0xc2824378 0t0 TCP *:http
(SO=ACCEPTCONN,ACCEPTFILTER,KEEPALIVE,PQLEN=0,QLEN=0,QLIM=
128,RCVBUF=262144,REUSEADDR,S
What is the limit of NFS mounts a FreeBSD server can make and how do
you modify this limit?
The only reference I could find to this question on the FreeBSD lists
is
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-July/051947.html
I have ran a similar test and the same thing happens aft
> Mike Karels wrote:
> >> There are also things to consider such as if a GigE card is connected to
> >> a GigE device (switch/card etc) and the card supports jumbo frames
> >> should the MRU be set to the max jumbo receive size for the card? This
> >> could cause confusion when people plug jumbo
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Max Laier wrote:
[ Excess CC-list ... testers needed!!! ]
On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Robert Watson wrote:
Dear all:
This is a reminder e-mail that, in the very near future, Giant
compatibility shims for network protocols will be removed.
<...>
The *only* remaining case
Synopsis: [broadcom]: Wifi card not detected
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: gavin
State-Changed-When: Fri Jul 20 09:30:28 UTC 2007
State-Changed-Why:
Broadcom have not released any documentation for this network card, so it is
unlikely there will be a driver for it in FreeB
Julian, good day.
Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 09:33:28AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> replying to myself.. the comment in the code in question said:
>
> /*-*/
> >/** if the elaborateTCPFin option is set, keeps the socket open
> > * and
25 matches
Mail list logo
