On Nov 14, 2007, at 18:24 , Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:13:25PM +0100, Johan Ström wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007, at 16:00 , Michael W. Lucas wrote:
If the jail is bound to the external NIC, won't it try to talk to
the
other jail on that NIC and not on lo0?
When talking to
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:13:25PM +0100, Johan Ström wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007, at 16:00 , Michael W. Lucas wrote:
> > If the jail is bound to the external NIC, won't it try to talk to the
> > other jail on that NIC and not on lo0?
>
> When talking to external world, it goes through em0. However
On Nov 14, 2007, at 16:00 , Michael W. Lucas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 01:21:00PM +0100, Johan Str?m wrote:
Hello
First, I've sent this mail to freebsd-pf and freebsd-stable without
any results, so lets try here to!
I got a FreeBSD 6.2 box running a few jails, with a pretty strict PF
rule
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 01:21:00PM +0100, Johan Str?m wrote:
> Hello
> First, I've sent this mail to freebsd-pf and freebsd-stable without
> any results, so lets try here to!
>
> I got a FreeBSD 6.2 box running a few jails, with a pretty strict PF
> ruleset. I got a problem with traffic betwee
Thank you all for the suggestions regarding NAV, but NAV is not installed on the
client. As of this morning, I believe that I have it fixed by modifying the
ruleset (implying that it was pf), however, what I still lack is an
understanding of why the *new* ruleset works, while the old ruleset does
Hello Rod,
You may remember me from that BINAT problem a while back. I got it
sorted. I didn't have the external IP addresses aliased on the NAT box.
All sorted now.
I had assumed that as the box was on the edge of the network range that
it would pick hook onto those IPs. Still doesn't matter. Th
On Thursday 29 July 2004 13.05, Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
>
> I agree with jared on this and would like to suggest that NAV running
> on the WinClient is the worst dumb POS I have ever had this misfortune
> to have to deal with. It can only do the most elementary smtp and pop
> transactions and fails
Rod.. Whitworth writes:
Back in the genuine DOS days Peter Norton had a good name. He should be
suing Symantec for the shit his name is getting due to their stupidity.
We use F-prot on win boxes. It costs $20USD for up to 10 and $2...
Back in the day. Remember when they used to put his picture on t
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 02:17:46 -0600, jared r r spiegel wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:44:34PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I have a mail server behind a obsd 3.5 firewall and I am having timeout errors
>> when I try and send an email with a large (5MB or greater) attachment.
>
> i wo
jared r r spiegel writes:
i would have the knee-jerk reaction that this is not due to pf.
Just being a user of pf I had the same reaction. My question would be;
"How do things work when you reduce pf to just the nessessary NAT?"
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:44:34PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have a mail server behind a obsd 3.5 firewall and I am having timeout errors
> when I try and send an email with a large (5MB or greater) attachment.
i would have the knee-jerk reaction that this is not due to pf.
> So th
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:16:51PM +0200, Philip Olsson wrote:
> Hello
> Iam trying to get more than 256 CBQ queues. Before i upgraded to 3.3-Current it was
> a problem in pfctl ( Trevor helped me there). I read in a mail by henning that you
> could increase CBQ_MAX_CLASSES from 256 to more, so I
12 matches
Mail list logo
