Re: Two interfaces sharing the same IP address: how to change default route's interface on link change?

2008-02-21 Thread Jeremie Le Hen
Hi, On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:18:03AM +, Bruce M. Simpson wrote: > Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > In summary, favor wired connectivity over the wireless one, at any time: > > could this be at boot time or not. > > > > I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who wants this kind of setup. So > > how

Re: IPV6_TCLASS missing from ip6(4)

2008-02-21 Thread Bruce M Simpson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:25:05 +, Bruce M Simpson wrote: I just noticed that whilst the socket code appears to support IPV6_TCLASS, we don't document it. I haven't raised a PR for this issue yet nor have I written a patch. Please do both :-) Done. TCL

Re: IPV6_TCLASS missing from ip6(4)

2008-02-21 Thread Christian Brueffer
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 01:17:18PM +, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >At Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:25:05 +, > >Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > > >>I just noticed that whilst the socket code appears to support > >>IPV6_TCLASS, we don't document it. > >> > >>I haven't raised a P

Re: How to reinitialize an interface

2008-02-21 Thread Julian Elischer
Tony Coon wrote: I am looking for a way to flush IP addresses, particularly IPv6, from an interface and have it repeat the initialization process that the interface goes through on boot, including IPv6 autoconfig. The "service network restart" in Linux seems to do this. I have tried netwo

How to reinitialize an interface

2008-02-21 Thread Tony Coon
I am looking for a way to flush IP addresses, particularly IPv6, from an interface and have it repeat the initialization process that the interface goes through on boot, including IPv6 autoconfig. The "service network restart" in Linux seems to do this. I have tried network_ipv6, netif,

Re: How to reinitialize an interface

2008-02-21 Thread Paul Schmehl
--On Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:41:05 -0800 Tony Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am looking for a way to flush IP addresses, particularly IPv6, from an interface and have it repeat the initialization process that the interface goes through on boot, including IPv6 autoconfig. The "servi

Re: ieee80211 ms and tu convert macros

2008-02-21 Thread Sepherosa Ziehau
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Barbieri, Paul (US SSA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I happened to be looking in net80211/ieee80211_var.h and examined the > macros IEEE80211_MS_TO_TU and IEEE80211_TU_TO_MS. The conversions seem > backward to me. The macros are: > > > > #define IEEE80211_MS_TO_

Re: How to reinitialize an interface

2008-02-21 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:41:05 -0800 Tony Coon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am looking for a way to flush IP addresses, particularly IPv6, from an interface and have it repeat the initialization process that the interface goes through on boot, including IPv6

Re: Multiple default routes on multihome host

2008-02-21 Thread Wes Peters
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Bruce M. Simpson wrote: Wes Peters wrote: I see a number of people have replied to this message offering solutions of how to accomplish your migration, using a variety of tools available to you in FreeBSD. I've always found this community very supportive in th

Re: panic in 6.3-RELEASE when multi-cast client exits

2008-02-21 Thread gnn
FYI this is fixed by a one line change that is about to hit 6-STABLE: @@ -991,7 +991,6 @@ * a new record. Otherwise, we are done. */ if (ifma->ifma_protospec != NULL) { - if_delmulti_ent(ifma); /* We don't need another reference */ IN_MULTI

Re: Multiple default routes on multihome host

2008-02-21 Thread Kevin Day
On Feb 21, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Wes Peters wrote: As much as anything I just object to the semantic dissonance in "multiple" "default". Think about it. I still haven't decided what it means at the packet level to have multiple default routes. Does that mean that, not having found a "bett

Re: Multiple default routes on multihome host

2008-02-21 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 22/02/2008, Wes Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As much as anything I just object to the semantic dissonance in > "multiple" "default". Think about it. > > I still haven't decided what it means at the packet level to have > multiple default routes. Does that mean that, not having found