Bezüglich Vincent Hoffman-Kazlauskas's Nachricht vom 27.02.2018 21:09
(localtime):
>
> On 27/02/2018 08:17, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>> Bezüglich Paul Vixie's Nachricht vom 27.02.2018 07:14 (localtime):
>>>
>>> Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
Bezüglich Ruben's Nachricht vom 26.02.2018 11:34 (local
Hi Julian,
Thank you for your feedback. I'm not affraid of some scripting, ill try
to make some time and dig into the ng stuff :)
Regards,
Ruben
On 27/02/2018 22:16, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 26/2/18 8:13 pm, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you're happy with your setup, I don't thin
On 26/2/18 8:13 pm, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
If you're happy with your setup, I don't think you gain anything from
switching to ng_bridge(4), besides learning to control netgraph(4)
(which is very desirable imho).
I haven't had time left to do useful benchmarking regarding ng_bridge(4)
vs. if_
On 26/2/18 8:13 pm, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
Bezüglich Ruben's Nachricht vom 26.02.2018 11:34 (localtime):
On 26/02/2018 10:56, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
…
Another, personally very significant, reason is that you'll get a
superfluous host interface for each if_bridge(4), which makes the outpu
On 26/2/18 6:34 pm, Ruben wrote:
On 26/02/2018 10:56, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
Hi Harry,
What are your reasons for preferring ng_bridge over the "normal" bridge?
Two very different main reasons:
if_bridge(4) is very standards compliant (e.g. that different reserved
MAC addresses won't get f
On 27/02/2018 08:17, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
> Bezüglich Paul Vixie's Nachricht vom 27.02.2018 07:14 (localtime):
>>
>>
>> Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>>> Bezüglich Ruben's Nachricht vom 26.02.2018 11:34 (localtime):
On 26/02/2018 10:56, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>>> …
> Another, persona
Bezüglich Paul Vixie's Nachricht vom 27.02.2018 07:14 (localtime):
>
>
> Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>> Bezüglich Ruben's Nachricht vom 26.02.2018 11:34 (localtime):
>>> On 26/02/2018 10:56, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>> …
Another, personally very significant, reason is that you'll get a
s
Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
Bezüglich Ruben's Nachricht vom 26.02.2018 11:34 (localtime):
On 26/02/2018 10:56, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
…
Another, personally very significant, reason is that you'll get a
superfluous host interface for each if_bridge(4), which makes the output
of plain ifconfi
Hi Harry,
Following some examples in the presentation you linked, Im rather
suprised that i'm apparently already utilizing the ng subsystem on some
of my machines (ngctl list lists entries and a couple of hooks as well).
Ill put a rig together for some playing around with the netgraph
subsystem,
Bezüglich Ruben's Nachricht vom 26.02.2018 11:34 (localtime):
> On 26/02/2018 10:56, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
…
>> Another, personally very significant, reason is that you'll get a
>> superfluous host interface for each if_bridge(4), which makes the output
>> of plain ifconfig(8) kind of unreadabl
On 26/02/2018 10:56, Harry Schmalzbauer wrote:
>> Hi Harry,
>>
>>
>> What are your reasons for preferring ng_bridge over the "normal" bridge?
> Two very different main reasons:
> if_bridge(4) is very standards compliant (e.g. that different reserved
> MAC addresses won't get forwarded – don't know
11 matches
Mail list logo