On 2011-Feb-20 01:39:00 +0100, Pawel Tyll wrote:
>Since nobody came up with any interest in having this properly
>investigated, then I suppose I'm the only one that uses dummynet for
>some larger-scale traffic shaping - maybe that's my mistake?
I'm using dummpnet+pf (not ipfw) on (roughly) FreeBS
Hi everyone,
I've been setting up IPv6 on the various networks I look after over the last
weeks. Today the turn came to a system that's running two FreeBSD boxes with
carp etc.
I added an inet6 address to the ethernet interface and then the 'carp address'
to carp0. The carp address is used b
On Sunday 20 February 2011 23:56:31 Adam Stylinski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm somewhat of a novice C programmer endeavoring in a project to
> write my own protocol which will sit on top of the 1480 byte 802.3
> frames (which are on top of 802.11 frames) to accomplish remote file
> transmission. The
> addresses not needed, thanks. From what i saw in the backtrace, the panic
> occurred on an incoming packet on the 'antispoof' option.
> The ruleset confirms the backtrace, but since
> 'antispoof' happens
> to be run on every packet given it is on the first rule,
> it apparently has nothing to do
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:13:12AM +0100, Pawel Tyll wrote:
> > understood. I am just saying that for instance the vlan presence and
> > changes is quite significant in this context.
> > You say vlans are "pretty much static" but can you tell us who adds/remove
> > them, assign addresses ?
> It's
Hello,
I'm somewhat of a novice C programmer endeavoring in a project to write my
own protocol which will sit on top of the 1480 byte 802.3 frames (which are
on top of 802.11 frames) to accomplish remote file transmission. The
communication will be one way, but one roadblock I'm running into is
d
> understood. I am just saying that for instance the vlan presence and
> changes is quite significant in this context.
> You say vlans are "pretty much static" but can you tell us who adds/remove
> them, assign addresses ?
It's not that much work and changes are simple and far between. I do
that p
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 11:50:28PM +0100, Pawel Tyll wrote:
...
> This machine is only doing dummynet traffic shaping from significant
> things (otherwise it runs a dhcpd, ntpd and named). It's pretty
> straight-forward routing, packets come in, packets come out via static
> routes - there are curr
> The way a problem is presented has a big impact on how it gets handled:
> in this specific case the poster is pointing out a possible culprit
> (which may be helpful or misleading), and gives no hint on other
> things that may be relevant: number of interfaces, vlans, tunnels, taps,
> bpf etc ? a
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 04:54:34AM +0100, Pawel Tyll wrote:
> > I've never seen a trace like this, and no absolutely nothing about
> > dummynet, sorry.
> > If it is in some way em's fault, then making sure you have the latest code
> > would be
> > a good idea. I have a test driver that is under s
On 2/19/2011 7:32 PM, Tom Judge wrote:
In this setup it does not matter where the root bridge is, each of the
firewalls will always have on port in disguarding state as both ports
lead back to the same peer bridge. With states such as:
fw 1 - 1: forwarding
fw 2 - 1: forwarding
fw 1 - 2: disguard
11 matches
Mail list logo
