Hi,
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:20:47 -0500
David Horn dhorn2...@gmail.com said:
dhorn2000 Thanks for working on rc.firewall, as the old scenario of dualing
dhorn2000 rc.firewall/rc.firewall6 was not easily used in the default
configurations
dhorn2000 when running dual stack. The new rc.firewall
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:31:32PM -0500, David Horn wrote:
Luigi --
I am seeing a kldload failure for ipfw.ko after the latest -current commits
(fails for r200580 - r200633 inclusive) for ipfw:
link_elf_obj: symbol ipfw_dyn_attach undefined
not surprising, as i forgot to put the new
On Thursday 17 December 2009 08:20:47 David Horn wrote:
Hajimu --
Thanks for working on rc.firewall, as the old scenario of dualing
rc.firewall/rc.firewall6 was not easily used in the default configurations
when running dual stack. The new rc.firewall has some very decent sane
defaults.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Max Laier m...@love2party.net wrote:
On Thursday 17 December 2009 08:20:47 David Horn wrote:
Thanks for working on rc.firewall, as the old scenario of dualing
rc.firewall/rc.firewall6 was not easily used in the default
configurations
when running dual
Context:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=121122
http://code.google.com/p/exports/wiki/ToSWorkAround
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=7306
Any chance we will see Marcelo's work (or a derivative) commited to base?
Are there serious implications or potential side effects on
eks...@freebsdbrasil.com.br wrote:
Context:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=121122
http://code.google.com/p/exports/wiki/ToSWorkAround
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=7306
Any chance we will see Marcelo's work (or a derivative) commited to base?
Are there serious
