On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:30:49 +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>This is from the network stack, it does not mean that bgpd added routes
>for this. For that you should check bgpctl show rib, bgpctl show fib and
>route(8) output.
I'll have to check when some traffic is passing. Pity the error line
doesn't
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 01:58:42PM +1000, Rod Whitworth wrote:
> I logged in to an OpenBGPd router which I maintain remotely as I needed to
> check something from dmesg.
>
> The command "dmesg|less" resulted in 150 lines, none of which was what I
> expected to see.
>
> Here are some samples:
>
I logged in to an OpenBGPd router which I maintain remotely as I needed to
check something from dmesg.
The command "dmesg|less" resulted in 150 lines, none of which was what I
expected to see.
Here are some samples:
cannot forward src fe80:0005::0420:77e7:f6bf:3550, dst 2406:a000::0006:0d08,
n
This came up on soekris-tech, but since I have the figures I might
as well post them here, too.
If you do lots of crypto by way of OpenSSL's libcrypto, a number of
popular algorithms (AES, SHA256, RSA, DSA, ECDSA, ECDH) are
significantly faster in amd64 mode than in i386 mode on the same
hardware.
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 04:04:51PM +0200, Paolo Aglialoro wrote:
> So this means time for ntfs-3g, zfs and more (maybe also xfs and jfs?)
> should be quite near :
> Il giorno 06/ago/2013 15:47, "Gleydson Soares" ha
> scritto:
Some of us are actually curious to see eventual perf measuremen
So this means time for ntfs-3g, zfs and more (maybe also xfs and jfs?)
should be quite near :
Il giorno 06/ago/2013 15:47, "Gleydson Soares" ha
scritto:
> mike-...@yandex.ru writes:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Now (in 5.4 and current) libfuse included in source tree,
> > but does not included in li
mike-...@yandex.ru writes:
> Hi!
>
> Now (in 5.4 and current) libfuse included in source tree,
> but does not included in libs Makefile, is it functional ?
> Just want to try ntfs-3g.
>
> Mike.
libfuse isn't hooked up yet.
it is a work in progress in active development which still not
completely
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 07:51:30AM -0300, Friedrich Locke wrote:
> Does anybody know the website of the uk domain registration ? I am lokking
> for the uk's entity for domain registration, not thirdies that do it too !
>
> Thanks
>
The entity responsible for managing .uk is Nominet.
Their websit
Does anybody know the website of the uk domain registration ? I am lokking
for the uk's entity for domain registration, not thirdies that do it too !
Thanks
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Mike Korbakov wrote:
> ot included in libs Makefile, is it functional ?
> Just want to try ntfs-3g.
You can try it "at your own risk", it is still in development and not
yet completely bug free. You can also send me reports if you find some
bugs.
Cheers,
--
Sylv
I'm dealing with old software that uses old NAT traversal techniques. I
specifically need to select the NAT variation as defined by RFC 3489
(section 5).
Generally I've used nat-to's 'static-port' option and gotten around this
issue. After adding some clients host-side, it seems like NAT tra
11 matches
Mail list logo