Re: rfc2385 (tcp md5 checksums) in -current broken?

2005-09-21 Thread Noritoshi Demizu
I'm testing rfc2385 support with some of our equipment with current as of a few days ago, and the support seems, well, rather broken. tcpdump seems to be broken. I think the patch at the tail of this e-mail needs to be applied to src/contrib/tcpdump/print-tcp.c. Could you try this patch? I

About guideline of parameters tuning while in polling mode.

2005-09-21 Thread Mao Shou Yan
Hi, everybody Can anyone give some guidelines on tuning the following parameters when the system is in polling mode and works in high throughput network environment. Thanks a lot! /* * EM_TIDV - Transmit Interrupt Delay Value * Valid Range: 0-65535 (0=off) *

Re: rfc2385 (tcp md5 checksums) in -current broken?

2005-09-21 Thread Noritoshi Demizu
I think there is a bug in syncache_respond(). I am sorry I was wrong. syncache_respond() does not have such bug. Buggy thing was my brain... In tcp_syncache.c rev 1.77, tcp_signature_compute() is called before filling the TCP SACK Permitted option and the TCP EOL option. I guess it

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Sten Daniel Sørsdal
For whatever reason, it turns out that you and only you have requested this feature. For typicaly network debugging applications, a raw socket is used, which allows the direct frobbing the the IP DF bit. For example, in traceroute(8). Could you tell us a bit more about the application

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Robert Watson
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote: For whatever reason, it turns out that you and only you have requested this feature. For typicaly network debugging applications, a raw socket is used, which allows the direct frobbing the the IP DF bit. For example, in traceroute(8). Could

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
Robert Watson wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote: For whatever reason, it turns out that you and only you have requested this feature. For typicaly network debugging applications, a raw socket is used, which allows the direct frobbing the the IP DF bit. For

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Robert Watson
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: I can think of a couple of uses to say IP DF on a UDP socket. Will cook up a patch to add such a sysctl in a few hours. The problem is that I think this solves only half of the likely problem. If what application developers really want is a way

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Sten Daniel Sørsdal
Robert Watson wrote: So if someone could generate some application pseudo-code that suggests what specifically is necessary from the socket layer in order for the application to function, we can talk about socket service extensions that might support the application. For example, a way to

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Sten Daniel Sørsdal
Robert Watson wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote: Robert Watson wrote: So if someone could generate some application pseudo-code that suggests what specifically is necessary from the socket layer in order for the application to function, we can talk about socket

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Robert Watson
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote: Your assumption is that you can rely on routers in your path to inform you that you that your packet size is causing fragments. Consider a client connected to an isp's network(1). The isp drops all ICMP packets. That network is then connected

iperf results

2005-09-21 Thread Matthew Jakeman
Hi, Some colleagues and myself have performed some simple tests on various OS's using iperf to simply fire packets from one pc to another over ethernet to test a few characteristics such as packet loss, jitter etc between IPv4 and IPv6. The configuration for all three OS's were 'out of the

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Andre Oppermann
Robert Watson wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote: Your assumption is that you can rely on routers in your path to inform you that you that your packet size is causing fragments. Consider a client connected to an isp's network(1). The isp drops all ICMP packets.

Re: Problems with SK and EM network cards/drivers on my system

2005-09-21 Thread Maxim Tuliuk
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 14:15 -0400, Benjamin Rosenblum wrote: ... now the EM problem. when i am running a very high network load (streaming video, dumping ALOT of data across the network, etc) the network card disconnects (i loose pings and all my transfers drop) and 15-20 seconds later

Re: iperf results

2005-09-21 Thread Chuck Swiger
Matthew Jakeman wrote: Some colleagues and myself have performed some simple tests on various OS's using iperf to simply fire packets from one pc to another over ethernet to test a few characteristics such as packet loss, jitter etc between IPv4 and IPv6. The configuration for all three OS's

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Sten Daniel Sørsdal
Robert Watson wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote: While the below is perfectly valid and useful and should be easy to implement with andre's proposed change, would you prefer an interface that allowed you to query the TCP connection and ask it what pathwise MTU it had

sparc64 if_bridge broken between BETA4 and BETA5

2005-09-21 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello, with 6.0-BETA4 (from september 10th) if_tap and if_bridge cooperate perfectly. After upgrading to BETA5 my machine panics seconds after I ifconfig bridge0 up.. I tested if_tap independently and it is fine; if_bridge panics without if_tap too. The error message is along the lines of

Re: sparc64 if_bridge broken between BETA4 and BETA5

2005-09-21 Thread Andrew Thompson
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:23:43PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote: Hello, with 6.0-BETA4 (from september 10th) if_tap and if_bridge cooperate perfectly. After upgrading to BETA5 my machine panics seconds after I ifconfig bridge0 up.. I tested if_tap independently and it is fine; if_bridge

IPFW NATD = NAT POOL

2005-09-21 Thread Daniel Dias Gonçalves
Exists the possibility to make NAT POOL with IPFW + NATD ? -- daniel ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: UDP dont fragment bit

2005-09-21 Thread Dave+Seddon
Greeting Sten, I'm a little worried about a couple of the things you've said: 1. It is more common to block icmp messages about reassembly problems than DF problems IF a message is generated in the first place. I think that's crap. Most firewalls DO correctly and statefully accept the

Re: [panic] page fault in tcp_timer_2msl_tw

2005-09-21 Thread Pawel Worach
Pawel Worach wrote: (kgdb) print *tw $1 = {tw_inpcb = 0x0, snd_nxt = 438603527, rcv_nxt = 3383864561, iss = 438603320, irs = 3383863898, cc_recv = 0, cc_send = 0, last_win = 65534, tw_so_options = 4, tw_cred = 0x0, t_recent = 0, t_starttime = 4294952294, tw_time = 0, tw_2msl = {le_next =

Re: Problems with SK and EM network cards/drivers on my system

2005-09-21 Thread Dave+Seddon
Greetings, There seems to be heaps of people on the list reporting errors with em cards and FreeBSD 5.4 -stable-ish (as in cvsup-ed within the last couple of months). Are there many people running these ok? Perhaps is not the network card so much as some other element of the computer?

Re: iperf results

2005-09-21 Thread Dave+Seddon
Greetings, We would all be very interested to see the complete report. Particularly if you fix up the results for FreeBSD :) Chucks right, we need waaay more info. We don't even know what version of FreeBSD your running. There are lots of sysctl variables to adjust. Here's a bunch I

Re: rfc2385 (tcp md5 checksums) in -current broken?

2005-09-21 Thread Noritoshi Demizu
--- print-tcp.c-ORG Thu Apr 21 15:36:05 2005 +++ print-tcp.c Wed Sep 21 18:43:51 2005 @@ -799,7 +799,7 @@ MD5_Update(ctx, tcpmd5secret, strlen(tcpmd5secret)); MD5_Final(sig, ctx); - if (memcmp(rcvsig, sig, 16)) + if (memcmp(rcvsig, sig, TCP_SIGLEN) == 0)