ere near as much as I want to.)
> --
> Freddie Cash
> fjwc...@gmail.com
> ___
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
--
Brian Reichert
55 Crystal Ave. #286
Derry NH 03038-1725 USA BSD admin/developer at large
_
list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
--
Brian Reichert
55 Crystal Ave. #286
Derry NH 03038-1725 USA BSD admin/developer at
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 07:44:44PM +0200, Ivo Vachkov wrote:
> 2005/11/11, Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Let me know how that goes; I still have a fantasy of building a WAP
> > appliance myself this winter, sometime...
>
> WAP = Wireless Access Point ?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:01:13AM +0100, Karel Miklav wrote:
> Brian Reichert wrote:
> >Use a hub?
>
> This is an external thing, right?
Yes; so are the hosts your connecting to this all-in-one box.
Sorry if I didn't fully understand the constraints...
>
> >
't wanna have another weird
> external device. What are my options?
Use a hub?
By a quad-port NIC?
> --
>
> Thanks,
> Karel Miklav
--
Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
55 Crystal Ave. #286Daytime number: (603) 434-6
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
--
Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
55 Crystal Ave. #286Dayt
bugs
were corrected in -STABLE' list, but it would be handy...
>
> Robert N M Watson
>
--
Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
37 Crystal Ave. #303Daytime number: (603) 434-6842
Derry NH 03
I've done
to make that work...
> Please help.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mihai
--
Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
37 Crystal Ave. #303Daytime number: (603) 434-6842
Derry NH 03038-1713 USA BSD admin/developer a
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:30:45PM -0500, Brian Reichert wrote:
> I've modified my firewall rules on this box slightly:
>
> 00040 fwd 198.175.254.1 tcp from 198.175.254.8 to any 25
> 00050 divert 8668 ip from any to any via rl1
> 00100 allow ip from any to any via lo0
&g
ther interface...
Is natd rewriting them before tcpdump gets to see them? How do I
prevent these packets from being diverted?
Thanks for the feedback, BTW...
> --
> Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
> I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 03:30:45PM -0500, Brian Reichert wrote:
> I think I'm badly misunderstanding the interaction of ipfw and natd
> and routing in general.
>
> I have a multihomed box:
I forgot to mention: this box is running 4.9-RELEASE. I've not
compiled the ipfw2
these replies to these packets
going out at all, much less to 198.175.254.1.
Does anyone have any pointers? Do I need to run the mail server
in a jail with a separate default route? Is there some other trick
I could/should be considering?
--
Brian Reichert <[EMAIL
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 02:41:14PM +0100, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Brian Reichert wrote:
> >If I catch a kernel doing otherwise, can I say 'Aha! That's a bug
> >based on documented standards' ?
>
> RFC 1122, Section 3.3.4.2
Cool! Thanks for that pointer..
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 02:27:21PM -0800, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 02:40:42PM -0500, Brian Reichert wrote:
> > If I catch a kernel doing otherwise, can I say 'Aha! That's a bug
> > based on documented standards' ?
>
> Since Solaris switchi
looked)
Such was my expectation. But: is this a BSD-specific implementation?
If I catch a kernel doing otherwise, can I say 'Aha! That's a bug
based on documented standards' ?
--
Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
37 Crystal Ave. #303
pester this list, as this question isn't actually
specific to FreeBSD...)
I'm more than willing to do my own research, but a suggestion of
useful buzzwords would be appreciated as well. :)
Thanks for your time...
--
Brian Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
37 Cry
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 11:40:16PM -0200, Tobias P. Santos wrote:
> The NIC's are Realtek 8139 detected as rl0 on client and also on server.
> BTW, I also tried an ed0 interface but it didn't change anything.
Does your client have multiple NICs? Which NIC is dhclient binding
to? If you have more
On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 03:47:21PM +0100, Robert Downes wrote:
> I've realised that my /etc/resolv.conf is being overwritten on every
> reboot. I assumed this was because of DHCP, but disabling DHCP meant
> that my network connection was disabled.
We're way off topic here, but here's a few quick
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 12:22:44AM +0100, Robert Downes wrote:
> Brian Reichert wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 04:59:35AM +0100, Robert Downes wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm trying to setup BIND so that my machine understands its own hostname
> >&g
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 04:59:35AM +0100, Robert Downes wrote:
> I'm trying to setup BIND so that my machine understands its own hostname
> (because mySQL refuses to install because the hostname appears invalid
> and the --force option seems to do nothing), and because it would be
> helpful gene
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 01:32:00PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> yes and no..
> there is a BPF node that takes BPF filter expressions
> and selects between one of a number of hooks using that.
>
> there is also an ipfw node (not checked in) that can be
> used (mentionned several times in the li
I need to put together a bridging packet filter. I've done so in
the past with bridge(4) and ipfw(8), and am willing to do so again.
However, there seems to be a great deal of interest nowadays in
using netgraph(4).
Two things I haven't yet been able to glean from the archives (yet,
pointers ap
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 02:29:01PM +0800, suxm wrote:
> The "login prompt" is still not shown.
> Then I typed the following commands
> # ps ax | grep tty
> # kill -HUP pid_of_ttyd1
>
> The "login prompt" is shown, but I can't type anything.
Make sure your serial cable is fully pinned. It's it's
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 03:25:51PM +0200, Marcel Dijk wrote:
> SNMP Error:
> no response received
> Does this mean that my machine doesn't have SNMP installed?
I would expect that means that the remote machine you're trying to
collect statistics from is not running SNMP.
> TIA,
>
> Marcel
--
25 matches
Mail list logo
