On Sun, 22 May 2005, Adam Gleave wrote:
> My question is, do you set the mtu on the box NAT'ing (fxp0, in this
> case), the box connecting to it, or both?
If you are doing NAT and running pf, why not use the scrub feature
instead to adjust the TCP MSS?
It will work much better for you. Man
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Adam Gleave wrote:
> ifconfig -a shows no difference to ifconfig (I checked with diff),
Yes, I know.. It is an old habit for OSes that do cause different output
with/without the -a. The main thing is to see that all the interfaces
are happy/up/active and not deadlocked
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Chris Zakelj wrote:
> Ok, this probably isn't too big a surprise to frequent readers, but I'm
> having trouble with the new kernelized pppoe. From the console messages
> below, it looks like it's "dialing" (for lack of a better term) and
> logging in successfully:
>
> May
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Chris Zakelj wrote:
> I'm up and running (for the moment, anyway), but for my edification, and
> since it may help others, were you suggesting I place:
> !\sbin\ifconfig pppoe0 debug
> into \etc\hostname.pppoe0, probably the line before 'route add'?
It is a generic flag to
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> And I can confirm it works for Streamyx in Malaysia !
For the mailing list archives, can you post what settings
(authentication protocol, any other specific setting) finally did work
with them?
cheers,
--
jason
Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
What I am looking for are comments from people who have tried some of
these techniques and have experience on some facets of competeting ways
to do the job.
I use djm's flashboot on several x86 platforms, including:
o VIA EPIA based systems
o PCengines.ch WRAP boards
Tim Donahue wrote:
recv_dd_description: invalid MTU 1500 sent by neighbor ID 10.4.64.3, expected
1496
This is your problem. Your physical interface driver
doesn't understand frames that are 'slightly' larger
than 1500 (baby giant). Frames are increased by
4 bytes when they have 802.1q tag
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Sylvain Coutant wrote:
> First, regarding Carp and STP what happens usually in a manageable L2
> switch when the same MAC is announced on two different ports ? I don't
> remember that STP includes loadsharing, so isn't it possible the switch
> will only choose one port to forwa
8 matches
Mail list logo
