On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 06:25:25PM -0400, Kenneth Culver wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:10:55PM -0400, Jason Andresen wrote:
Wilko Bulte wrote:
For lack of a better list: I'm trying to use the net/wakeonlan port
to remotely switch on a machine that is equipped with a 3COM
as far as i remember, you have to first shutdown the host for that WOL
will work. (im not sure but something like 'shutdown -p')
(hit the start button to shutoff computer :-)
danny
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Dear Thomas,
Well - I'm still trying to get pptp to cooperate and set up
a VPN connection to a Microsoft VPN server.
I'm just wondering - is there _anyone_ out there that has
met with success using pptp - and, if so, could you share
your /etc/ppp/ppp.conf settings?
Dear Thomas,
Well - I'm still trying to get pptp to cooperate and set up
a VPN connection to a Microsoft VPN server.
I'm just wondering - is there _anyone_ out there that has
met with success using pptp - and, if so, could you share
your /etc/ppp/ppp.conf settings?
Dominic Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 03:47:13PM -0400, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
Well - I'm still trying to get pptp to cooperate and set up
a VPN connection to a Microsoft VPN server.
I'm just wondering - is there _anyone_ out there that has
met with
Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always had better success using the mpd port for pptp..
It's installed now :-) I'm going to try and give it a go this
morning!
I'll let everyone know how it goes...
- Thanks! -
- Dave Rivers -
To Unsubscribe: send mail
On 01-May-2002 Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Nelson, Trent . [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020501 06:41] wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on porting the Linux Cisco VPN client kernel module to
FreeBSD. The API interface between the OS and their actual driver has four
spinlock functions that operate around a
/sbin/restore currently does not set the uid, gid, mode or times of
symbolic links. In particular, the owner of the link is left as the owner
of the restore process.
Would someone consider checking in the patch I supplied in:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/37665
The patch
ctrl-alt-B gives me a utility to select things in the netbooting area.
But no selection of WOL.
Is this what you saw on your card?
I'll have to check when I get home from work...
Ken
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Hi there,
I have an unusual question, and hope I'll find the answer on this list. I
would like to build a redundant structure of firewalls (2 of them), and I
really don't have any idea on how to do that. What I would like is a
scheme like:
_
Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always had better success using the mpd port for pptp..
OK - I went through the mpd documentation, etc.. very nice.
No problems setting things up, etc...
However, mpd isn't working for me either. It makes it through
the authentication,
Hiya,
WRT redundant upstream links, I think it'll be much easier to use a BGP
solution. You could even setup load balancing at the same time with the help
of BGP. If both your uplinks are to the same ISP you can probably get away
with using Cisco's interface backup configuations so long as both
Bogdan TARU wrote:
I have an unusual question, and hope I'll find the answer on this list. I
would like to build a redundant structure of firewalls (2 of them), and I
really don't have any idea on how to do that. What I would like is a
scheme like:
[ ... picture ... ]
But the real
Terry Lambert wrote:
Unfortunately, the FreeBSD ethernet interface isn't terribly
smart. Ideally, it would provide a virtual interface per VIP,
all the way down to the card; it doesn't.
Probably wasn't very clear here.
The Tigon II, for example, supports 4 VIPs, the Intel Gigabit
ethernet
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
From the ppp.log file - it seems I have to have MSChapV2
both enabled and disabled at the same time. At some points
in the negotiation it needs to be disabled (i.e. *not* used
for authenticating the peer) - but at other points it needs
to be enabled
Thomas David Rivers writes:
If I add
enable MSChapV2
in /etc/ppp/ppp.conf - then our ppp client requires that the
peer (the Microsoft VPN server) authenticate using MSChapV2. But,
the Microsoft VPN peer refuses that (it's configured to not use
MSChapV2.
Don't you want
Thomas David Rivers writes:
If I add
enable MSChapV2
in /etc/ppp/ppp.conf - then our ppp client requires that the
peer (the Microsoft VPN server) authenticate using MSChapV2. But,
the Microsoft VPN peer refuses that (it's configured to not use
MSChapV2.
Don't you
Thomas David Rivers writes:
enable MSChapV2
in /etc/ppp/ppp.conf - then our ppp client requires that the
peer (the Microsoft VPN server) authenticate using MSChapV2. But,
the Microsoft VPN peer refuses that (it's configured to not use
MSChapV2.
Don't you want
Archie Cobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas David Rivers writes:
enable MSChapV2
in /etc/ppp/ppp.conf - then our ppp client requires that the
peer (the Microsoft VPN server) authenticate using MSChapV2. But,
the Microsoft VPN peer refuses that (it's configured
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 04:52:25 -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
[in regard to multiple concurrent pw(8) processes hosing master.passwd]
The reason for this is that the only file pw(8) locks is
/etc/master.passwd.new when it copies into it.
[snip]
If anybody's interested, I could take a stab at
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
You will need to add a knob. One knob is not enough. You can
not have both tea and no tea at the sme time.
Clearly - A AND NOT A is not something that can exist.
But - does anyone have an idea what that could be? I was thinking,
perhaps incorrectly,
I'm interested too. I've seen this problem (quite a few times) on a large
system (1k-10k+) users. It only happens on systems being provisioned to via
pw.
Matt
On 5/2/02 4:27 PM, Geoffrey C. Speicher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 04:52:25 -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
[in
Greetings! I have a FreeBSD-4.5 box that is a specialized server box. It
doesn't run any user processes and only runs a bunch of small, server
efficient processes.
I have an inconsistency that I am trying to explain. When I do a w command
on the box, I see this:
7:31PM up 74 days, 39 mins, 1
On 02-May-2002 Jason Borkowsky wrote:
Greetings! I have a FreeBSD-4.5 box that is a specialized server box. It
doesn't run any user processes and only runs a bunch of small, server
efficient processes.
I have an inconsistency that I am trying to explain. When I do a w command
on the
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 05:10:00PM -0400 I heard the voice of
Matt Simerson, and lo! it spake thus:
On 5/2/02 4:27 PM, Geoffrey C. Speicher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 04:52:25 -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
[in regard to multiple concurrent pw(8) processes hosing
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
What do people think of using the external lock file (well, I can't
actually think of any OTHER way to do it, so...)? I'm thinking /var/run,
but on the flipside just putting it in /etc might be cleaner. Comments?
Feel free to correct me if I'm
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jason
Borkowsky writes:
1. How is it my load average is over 1, but my single CPU is 85% idle?
This is quite possible due to process synchronisation, since there
is no direct relationship between the load average and the percentage
of time that the CPU is idle. The
Greetings! I have a FreeBSD-4.5 box that is a specialized server box. It
doesn't run any user processes and only runs a bunch of small, server
efficient processes.
I have an inconsistency that I am trying to explain. When I do a w command
on the box, I see this:
7:31PM up 74
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:58:32PM +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
If anyone is interested I'd appreciate some testing, and it
would be nice to get it committed eventually.
Ooooh! :-)
Yes please!
I'll look at this.
Please restore the CSRG ID's and Copyright along with other changes we
usually
Sorry, your stylized text, or HTML mail can not be distributed through
the ISP-Lists.
The only acceptable format for posting to the ISP-Lists is ASCII Text.
Please, re-send your post to continue your discussion on the ISP-Lists.
If you have any other questions concerning posting guidelines on
[ note: freebsd-hackers being removed from the cc: list ]
Thomas David Rivers writes:
mpd fails as well... with something very similar... it seems to
send a CCP configuration request and simply gets no answer
back from the Microsoft server. From the VPN log (you can see
toward the
Archie Cobbs wrote:
Thomas David Rivers writes:
If I add
enable MSChapV2
in /etc/ppp/ppp.conf - then our ppp client requires that the
peer (the Microsoft VPN server) authenticate using MSChapV2. But,
the Microsoft VPN peer refuses that (it's configured to not use
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Archie Cobbs wrote:
Thomas David Rivers writes:
If I add
enable MSChapV2
in /etc/ppp/ppp.conf - then our ppp client requires that the
peer (the Microsoft VPN server) authenticate using MSChapV2. But,
the Microsoft VPN peer
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
I guess we need to see a packet trace for a Windows machine
being successful, and a FreeBSD machine being unsuccessful,
in order to run a side-by-side comparison.
Believe me! I've asked for such a thingy... apparently,
the magic software needed to do a
What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
--
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The opinions expressed above are entirely my own
It is difficult to make things foolproof because fools are
so ingenious.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
Dave Hayes wrote:
What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
Branch Point.
It means the code has been branched, either for a code slush,
or for other work that may not make it back in until it's
complete, which might take a while.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
If memory serves me right, Dave Hayes wrote:
What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
It marks the branch point where the RELENG_* branch was created from
the HEAD.
Bruce.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
If memory serves me right, Terry Lambert wrote:
Dave Hayes wrote:
What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
Branch Point.
It means the code has been branched,
Yes.
either for a code slush,
or for other work that may not make it back in until it's
complete, which might
Dave Hayes writes:
What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
Branch point.
-Archie
__
Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
either for a code slush,
or for other work that may not make it back in until it's
complete, which might take a while.
Nope. The original poster asked about RELENG_* branches; they aren't
used that way, which I'm sure you know.
???
- Original Message -
From: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dave Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Difference between RELENG_* and RELENG_*_BP
[snip]
I guess it's not obvious, since
If memory serves me right, Terry Lambert wrote:
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
either for a code slush,
or for other work that may not make it back in until it's
complete, which might take a while.
Nope. The original poster asked about RELENG_* branches; they aren't
used that way, which
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Drew Tomlinson wrote:
I'm just trying to understand. :) How is RELENG_X_Y_BP different from
RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE?
RELENG_X_Y_BP is the point on RELENG_X where the RELENG_X_Y branch was
created. RELENG_X_Y_0_RELEASE is the point on the RELENG_X_Y branch
Drew Tomlinson wrote:
I'm just trying to understand. :) How is RELENG_X_Y_BP different from
RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE?
For the most part, studying the FreeBSD source tree is a good lesson
in how to be clever in your use of CVS. The only place it really
falls down is in the lack of vendor tagging
Brooks Davis wrote:
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Drew Tomlinson wrote:
I'm just trying to understand. :) How is RELENG_X_Y_BP different from
RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE?
RELENG_X_Y_BP is the point on RELENG_X where the RELENG_X_Y branch was
created. RELENG_X_Y_0_RELEASE is the
- Original Message -
From: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:37 PM
Drew Tomlinson wrote:
I'm just trying to understand. :) How is RELENG_X_Y_BP different
from
RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE?
For the most part, studying the FreeBSD source tree is a good lesson
Drew Tomlinson wrote:
Yes it does. Thank you for your through and detailed explaination.
I'm positive that someone else could have done a better
job, and then updated the documentation (hint hint 8-)).
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers
Thanks all for the responses. Between the web pages and this
discussion, my knowledge of this has now become a *lot* clearer.
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-STABLE is called -STABLE these days, but RELENG_X -STABLE is
really RELENG_X_Y + changes pending RELENG_X_(Y+1). Way back
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:44:02PM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-STABLE is called -STABLE these days, but RELENG_X -STABLE is
really RELENG_X_Y + changes pending RELENG_X_(Y+1). Way back
when, I think we had a long knock-down drag-out fight about
Brooks Davis wrote:
I'm sure you folks hashed this all over before, but really...calling a
branch -stable when it really isn't is not good semantic practice
IMNSHO.
DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER STARTING THIS THREAD!!! It's been hashed over more
times then are worth counting on various mailing
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:03:24PM -0700, Michael Sierchio wrote:
Brooks Davis wrote:
I'm sure you folks hashed this all over before, but really...calling a
branch -stable when it really isn't is not good semantic practice
IMNSHO.
DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER STARTING THIS THREAD!!! It's
51 matches
Mail list logo
