To elaborate, after enabling ldpd with - I have observed the
following in the log output:
Mar 3 00:58:37 mpls-gw ldpd[77048]: nbr_fsm: event SESSION CLOSE
resulted in action CLOSE SESSION and changing state for lsr-id
100.92.64.68 from OPERATIONAL to PRESENT
Mar 3 00:58:37 mpls-gw
Hello, I am still working through some issues with trying to use
OpenBSD as a Virtual MPLS PE in a multi-tenant hosted IaaS
environment.
I am running OpenBSD 6.4 in a Hyper-V environment.
I recently started seeing one of my LDP adjacencies flapping, so I
replace that particular P device with a
Thanks for the help, Fred. Unfortunately, I'm still getting a black
screen. I didn't previously have a ~/.xsession, but I created one with
the following contents:
export LANG=en_US.UTF-8
export ENV=$HOME/.kshrc
xrdb -merge $HOME/.Xresources
xsetroot -solid dimgray
xidle &
LANG= xclock -strftime
The problem is with the ACPI stack, it's known not to work with this
laptop (I have the same one). It worked for one release (6.1 iirc) and
then a regression was introduced that stopped it from working.
hth
Noth
On 03/03/2019 01:01, Fred Crowson wrote:
do you have an .xsession file in your
do you have an .xsession file in your /home/ directory?
machdep.allowaperture=1 should not be needed for xenodm to work...
I once had a similar issue where the X server would start with a black
screen until I toggled either the keyboard brightness setting or the
keyboard shortcut for internal /
I have been unable to start X with a new install of OpenBSD on my
laptop. I am a beginner with OpenBSD. This is a Skylake laptop with
Intel 520 QHD graphics. During boot, the console shows with underscan,
then the resolution increases (but is still less than native), then
goes black upon starting
Hi,
I would be interested to find out the community's view on whether separating
"router" and "firewall" roles is still a good thing or whether developments in
recent iterations of OpenBSD would permit aggregation whilst maintaining
integrity and security ?
If you forgive my attempt at ASCII
Hi Thuban,
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 09:20:42 +0100 Thuban wrote:
> On the server with the highest priority (lower MX), I must set "-M
> nn.nn.nn.nn" where nn.nn.nn.nn is the IP of a lower priority MX?
Where nn.nn.nn.nn is the public IP of a fake backup MX server,
which *DOES* have an SMTP daemon
Hello,
I ran into the spamd "-M" flag in the manpage, and I'm not sure to understand
it correctly.
On the server with the highest priority (lower MX), I must set "-M nn.nn.nn.nn"
where nn.nn.nn.nn is the IP of a lower priority MX ?
If there is more than one backup MX (lower priority), does the -M
9 matches
Mail list logo
