Hi,
I just want to check if my understanding of the transition mechanisms in free bsd 4.2
implementation is correct.
Assume that a ipv6 packet has to travel through a ipv4 network to an ipv6 destination
host.
As usual the appropriate routing entry is found for the destination address
Hi,
Iam furnishin all the information requested by u.
1) My system version( output of uname -a)
FReeBSD 4.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE #19: Sat Jun 2 23:43:40 IST 2001
root@:/usr/src/sys/compile/PFXKERNEL i386.
2) Iam not presenly using the prefix command. Iam entering the prefixes in the
Hi,
My this doubt is regarding automatic tunneling. I know that freeBSd doesnot support
it. But i feel u can guide me in this.
Suppose iam implementing automatic tunneling then is there a need for me to use any of
the gif interfaces.
I feel that with the present freeBSD architecture i can
The automatic tunneling uses addresses of the form ::IPv4, so
if you detect that the destination is of this form, means that
the packet should be 'automatically' encapsulated.
Correct me if I am wrong.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Hi,
My this doubt is regarding automatic tunneling. I know
I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
command:
http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1=1.49r2=1.50
In the commit log, the committer said
Fixed the -iface breakage introduced with the latest KAME merge
in revision 1.48. It is pretty
I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
command:
http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1=1.49r2=1.50
In the commit log, the committer said
Fixed the -iface breakage introduced with the latest KAME merge
in revision 1.48. It is pretty
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B escribió:
I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
command:
http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1=1.49r2=1.50
In the commit log, the committer said
Fixed the -iface breakage introduced with the
I am trying to add a static route to the kernel tables
and read the route Manpage to this purpose
I've tried a lot but I get almost the same message:
bad address
what's wrong with the command?
route add -inet6 bla.bla.bla::/48 -iface xl0
thanks a lot
Anastasia
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 01:50:39PM +0200, Juan Fco Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B escribio:
I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8)
command:
http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1=1.49r2=1.50
In
if I may bother you with my experience (of the moment!)
the most effective way was:
route add -inet6 bla:bla:bla:: -prefixlen 48 gateway -ifp xl0
then I can reach the Gateway + the subnets which the gateway routes to.
When I give only
route add -inet6 bla:bla:bla:: gateway
i can then reach
Hi all:
I am trying to make a kernel modification to add automatically
a Routing Header before send the packet.
I am using KAME kernel.
I have found the following structure in netinet6/ipv6_var.h:
/* Routing header related info */
struct ip6po_rhinfo {
struct ip6_rthdr
Hi -net folk...
Awhile back, I was trying to figure out how bridge(4) worked, but
discovered that the manpage didn't list all the sysctls necessary to
configure the bridge. I filed a PR (22060) asking someone to look into
this. I subsequently lost interest in bridge(4), but gained a commit
I'm having some trouble with my wireless networking card in a
dell c600 notbook running FreeBSD. I have it initialized (it
has power) and it tries to transmit but doesn't receive
anything. When I ping the local machine's address, it gets an
answer which indicates to me that it recognizes some
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010613 18:31] wrote:
Hi
I am currently working on implementing SACK on FreeBSD 4.3 (STABLE) . At some point
in the future I plan to contribute this patch to the FreeBSD source tree (4.3 or
later). I had a look at
In article local.mail.freebsd-net/[EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Hi
I am currently working on implementing SACK on FreeBSD 4.3 (STABLE) . At
some point in the future I plan to contribute this patch to the FreeBSD
source tree (4.3 or later). I had a look at
Long ago (1996, sic!) i did some work on this, which you can find at
http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/sack.html
The retransmission logic probably need to be updated, also in relation
to the newer SACK RFC issued i think sometime last year. But the boring
part of the code which handles
Thanks to all who responded. Luigi, I will also have a look at the code that you
posted. I did have a look at the code from the UCB Daedalus project, which was based
on the BSDI 2.0 code. I am currently basing most of my code changes on that work. The
changes broadly relate to the relatively
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi I am currently working on implementing SACK on FreeBSD 4.3 (STABLE)
. At some point in the future I plan to contribute this patch to the
FreeBSD source tree (4.3 or later). I had a look at
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:57:00 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
1) My system version( output of uname -a)
FReeBSD 4.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE #19: Sat Jun 2 23:43:40 IST 2001
root@:/usr/src/sys/compile/PFXKERNEL i386.
Unfortunately, FreeBSD 4.2 (and even 4.3) is quite buggy about the
My this doubt is regarding automatic tunneling. I know that freeBSd doe=
snot support it. But i feel u can guide me in this.
Suppose iam implementing automatic tunneling then is there a need for m=
e to use any of the gif interfaces.
RFC1933/2893 automatic tunnelling is likely to get
20 matches
Mail list logo
