Hi all,
I am replying to this thread as I see some resemblance between issue I
experience and the quickly rising netlivelocks value.
On 24/06/14 3:08 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>Kapetanakis Giannis [bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr] wrote:
>> On 23/06/14 21:33, Henning Brauer wrote:
>>>* Chris Cappuccio
On 24/06/14 3:08 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
Kapetanakis Giannis [bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr] wrote:
On 23/06/14 21:33, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Chris Cappuccio [2014-06-23 20:24]:
I have a sandy bridge Xeon box with PF NAT that handles a daily 200
to 700Mbps. It has a single myx interface using
Kapetanakis Giannis [bil...@edu.physics.uoc.gr] wrote:
> On 23/06/14 21:33, Henning Brauer wrote:
> >* Chris Cappuccio [2014-06-23 20:24]:
> >>I have a sandy bridge Xeon box with PF NAT that handles a daily 200
> >>to 700Mbps. It has a single myx interface using OpenBSD 5.5 (not
> >>current). It d
On 23/06/14 21:33, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Chris Cappuccio [2014-06-23 20:24]:
I have a sandy bridge Xeon box with PF NAT that handles a daily 200
to 700Mbps. It has a single myx interface using OpenBSD 5.5 (not
current). It does nothing but PF NAT and related routing. No barage
of vlans or int
* Chris Cappuccio [2014-06-23 20:24]:
> Henning Brauer [lists-open...@bsws.de] wrote:
> > * Chris Cappuccio [2014-06-21 20:05]:
> > > Right now all routers and firewalls should
> > > be on SP kernels or you will actually have worse performance.
> >
> > This is not true any more and hasn't been f
Henning Brauer [lists-open...@bsws.de] wrote:
> * Chris Cappuccio [2014-06-21 20:05]:
> > Right now all routers and firewalls should
> > be on SP kernels or you will actually have worse performance.
>
> This is not true any more and hasn't been for some time.
>
> It is, however, true that the ex
* Chris Cappuccio [2014-06-21 20:05]:
> Right now all routers and firewalls should
> be on SP kernels or you will actually have worse performance.
This is not true any more and hasn't been for some time.
It is, however, true that the extra cores buy you little to nothing
for the kernel side, i.
* Adam Thompson [2014-06-23 07:20]:
> On 14-06-21 01:03 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> >Adam Thompson [athom...@athompso.net] wrote:
> >>Yes, OT... But unless you've chosen to do something silly (like enabling
> >>MVRP, or blindly allowing all VLANs to an untrusted host) saying "VLANs
> >>aren't s
On 14-06-21 01:03 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
Adam Thompson [athom...@athompso.net] wrote:
Yes, OT... But unless you've chosen to do something silly (like enabling MVRP, or blindly allowing
all VLANs to an untrusted host) saying "VLANs aren't secure" is about as useful as
"ICMP isn't secure".
P
Adam Thompson [athom...@athompso.net] wrote:
> Yes, OT... But unless you've chosen to do something silly (like enabling
> MVRP, or blindly allowing all VLANs to an untrusted host) saying "VLANs
> aren't secure" is about as useful as "ICMP isn't secure".
> Please explain how VLANs are not secure w
Yes, OT... But unless you've chosen to do something silly (like enabling MVRP,
or blindly allowing all VLANs to an untrusted host) saying "VLANs aren't
secure" is about as useful as "ICMP isn't secure".
Please explain how VLANs are not secure when you have control of the devices on
both ends of
* Boris Goldberg [2014-06-20 15:51]:
> There is no real security separation between vlans.
sigh. stop spreading myths from the last century.
> Also OT - is OBSD handling 10 gigabit interfaces at full capacity
> already?
yes
--
Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org
BS Web Services
Hello ML,
Thursday, June 19, 2014, 2:21:38 AM, you wrote:
Mm> I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet
Mm> interface (1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if in
Mm> terms of performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to have one
Mm> subnet per ethe
* ML mail [2014-06-19 09:22]:
> I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet
> interface (1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if in
> terms of performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to have one
> subnet per ethernet interface like I have now or to
On 14-06-19 02:43 AM, Mike Jackson wrote:
Quoting ML mail :
I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet
interface (1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if in
terms of performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to have
one subnet per ethernet inter
Quoting ML mail :
I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet
interface (1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if
in terms of performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to
have one subnet per ethernet interface like I have now or to have
the fo
Hello,
I have four /24 subnets and currently have one subnet per ethernet interface
(1Gbit/s) on my openbsd firewall. Now I was wondering if in terms of
performance (especially latency/pps) it is better to have one subnet per
ethernet interface like I have now or to have the four subnets on one
17 matches
Mail list logo
