Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27 Nov 2008 16:47:
> > Now I want to tunnel between my 192.168.90.0/24 and a foreign
> > 192.168.200.0/24. So I assigned 192.168.90.254/32 to lo2 and created
> > a static route.
>
> So if you don't mind to go out with a source address of 192.168.90.1
> i
Thank Eygene for the reply. It might be but I'm not sure. Anyone is
having the same setting or any info on this?
--
Regards
Kevin Foo
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin, good day.
>
> Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 08:26:55PM +0800, Kevin Foo wrote:
>> I
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Yony Yossef wrote:
>
> Is there a native interface for LRO in FreeBSD 7? I can't find any use for
>> IFCAP_LRO but notifying the driver if to use or not to use this offload.
>>
>> If not, is it plan
Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27 Nov 2008 16:47:
> I am running out the door but ... will check again tonight.
Thanks!
> So if you don't mind to go out with a source address of 192.168.90.1
> instead of .254, what about this hack. What happens if you change the
> route to
> ro
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Frank Behrens wrote:
Hi,
I am running out the door but ... will check again tonight.
Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27 Nov 2008 14:53:
[gif-like ipsec and routes]
routes are not alternatives for fixing applications;) Often it's easier
to apply a hack inste
Bjoern,
thanks for your fast answer.
Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27 Nov 2008 14:53:
> Yes I know that hack though I never actually used it with a loopback
> as the loopback case is *uhm* gross. You know you are telling the
> kernel to actually send the packets to yourself which so
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Frank Behrens wrote:
2b) for RELENG_7:
http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/bz_jail7-20081126-02-at153644.diff
With this patch I received a new source selection implementation, I
believe the same as announced for HEAD. Here I found a problem.
HEAD has had it since beginning
Bjoern A. Zeeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 26 Nov 2008 23:56:
> If you are interested in a new set of jail patches... anyone?;-)
Yes, but about jail specific things I'll write later, in another mail
and on another list.
> 2b) for RELENG_7:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~bz/bz_jail7-20081126-0
I was looking at some tcpdumps from a FreeBSD box receiving a TCP
stream with someone yesterday and noticed that it seemed to be
generating quite a lot of dupliacte acks. Looking more carefully,
we noticed that the duplicates were actually window updates. The
code for sending window updates can be
Kevin, good day.
Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 08:26:55PM +0800, Kevin Foo wrote:
> I recently setup a bridge box with inline cache proxy. if_bridge with
> pf filtering was working perfectly. However, squid-cache listening on
> loopback device did not get any packets from pf rdr. I have seen
> successful s
Dave, good day.
Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 10:28:10PM +1030, Dave Edwards wrote:
> I've tried creating a host route for the nmap target instead of relying
> on the default route and I've tried three other versions of nmap. As an
> aside (or maybe a hint) when compiling nmap from source, there are a
> n
Hi list,
I recently setup a bridge box with inline cache proxy. if_bridge with
pf filtering was working perfectly. However, squid-cache listening on
loopback device did not get any packets from pf rdr. I have seen
successful setups with OpenBSD's bridge spamd which rather a similar
setup. Is somet
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Yony Yossef wrote:
Is there a native interface for LRO in FreeBSD 7? I can't find any use for
IFCAP_LRO but notifying the driver if to use or not to use this offload.
If not, is it planned for FreeBSD 8?
IFCAP_LRO is a capability/policy flag allowing drivers to declare
Hi All,
Is there a native interface for LRO in FreeBSD 7? I can't find any use
for IFCAP_LRO but notifying the driver if to use or not to use this
offload.
If not, is it planned for FreeBSD 8?
Thanks
Yony
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http:
Hi,
I'm having some problems with nmap over the tun device. I connect to
the net using ppp and pppoe (adsl) which creates the "tun0" device. My
default route goes out that way.
Using nmap to try to map an external host:
-
# nmap -vvv -e tun0 -sS -p80,443 1.2.3.4
Startin
And an other question. For now, if these options are manually set for
the derived interfaces, will that work?
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:28:05 +0100
Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gergely CZUCZY wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd be also pretty interested in this one. And also, the question
> >
Gergely CZUCZY wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd be also pretty interested in this one. And also, the question
> arises me for the very same issue, for LACP interfaces, and
> VLAN-over-LACP interfaces (lagg(4) as LACP).
> Having a gateway requires performances, and it often also means having
> VLANs, and LA
Synopsis: [ipsec]: freebsd6.2 kernel cannot support ipsec "-E null -A
hmac-sha1", FreeBSD7.0 kernel cannot support -A aes-xcbc-mac
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: remko
State-Changed-When: Thu Nov 27 09:55:17 UTC 2008
State-Changed-Why:
Close per request of the submitter. t
The following reply was made to PR bin/129218; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: wang_jiabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: i386/129218: freebsd6.2 kernel cannot support ipsec "-E null
-A hmac-sha1", FreeBSD7.0 kernel cannot support -A aes-xcbc-mac
Hello,
I'd be also pretty interested in this one. And also, the question
arises me for the very same issue, for LACP interfaces, and
VLAN-over-LACP interfaces (lagg(4) as LACP).
Having a gateway requires performances, and it often also means having
VLANs, and LACP for failure tolerance. So I think
20 matches
Mail list logo
