On 2017 Jan 19 (Thu) at 06:26:25 +0100 (+0100), Peter Hessler wrote:
:On 2016 Dec 17 (Sat) at 14:05:40 +0100 (+0100), Peter Hessler wrote:
::On 2016 Sep 30 (Fri) at 10:16:19 +0200 (+0200), Peter Hessler wrote:
:::This diff makes route get and route monitor work. sockaddr_bfd is so we
:::can play l
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 06:26:25AM +0100, Peter Hessler wrote:
> On 2016 Dec 17 (Sat) at 14:05:40 +0100 (+0100), Peter Hessler wrote:
> :On 2016 Sep 30 (Fri) at 10:16:19 +0200 (+0200), Peter Hessler wrote:
> ::This diff makes route get and route monitor work. sockaddr_bfd is so we
> ::can play lik
On 2016 Dec 17 (Sat) at 14:05:40 +0100 (+0100), Peter Hessler wrote:
:On 2016 Sep 30 (Fri) at 10:16:19 +0200 (+0200), Peter Hessler wrote:
::This diff makes route get and route monitor work. sockaddr_bfd is so we
::can play like the other RTAX_* indexes in rti_info of route messages.
::
In route(
On 23.12.2016. 16:57, Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
> On 21.12.2016. 23:15, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> it seems that bfd is working with Force10 S4810 and Extreme Networks
>>> x460 switches. I can test it with cisco c6k5 if you want?
>>
>> Hei,
>>
>> i'm sure phessler (who might not read this
On 2016 Dec 23 (Fri) at 16:57:27 +0100 (+0100), Hrvoje Popovski wrote:
:On 21.12.2016. 23:15, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
:>> Hi,
:>>
:>> it seems that bfd is working with Force10 S4810 and Extreme Networks
:>> x460 switches. I can test it with cisco c6k5 if you want?
:>
:> Hei,
:>
:> i'm sure phessl
On 21.12.2016. 23:15, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it seems that bfd is working with Force10 S4810 and Extreme Networks
>> x460 switches. I can test it with cisco c6k5 if you want?
>
> Hei,
>
> i'm sure phessler (who might not read this for a couple of days) is happy
> about any test you
Hrvoje Popovski(hrv...@srce.hr) on 2016.12.21 22:03:56 +0100:
> On 17.12.2016. 14:05, Peter Hessler wrote:
> > Updated output, requested by Theo. A normal get will show just the bfd
> > state, use "-bfd" to get all of the information.
> >
> > OK?
> >
> > $ route -n get 203.0.113.9
> >route t
On 17.12.2016. 14:05, Peter Hessler wrote:
> Updated output, requested by Theo. A normal get will show just the bfd
> state, use "-bfd" to get all of the information.
>
> OK?
>
> $ route -n get 203.0.113.9
>route to: 203.0.113.9
> destination: 203.0.113.9
>mask: 255.255.255.255
> i
On 2016 Sep 30 (Fri) at 10:16:19 +0200 (+0200), Peter Hessler wrote:
:This diff makes route get and route monitor work. sockaddr_bfd is so we
:can play like the other RTAX_* indexes in rti_info of route messages.
:
:OK?
Updated output, requested by Theo. A normal get will show just the bfd
state
On 2016 Dec 05 (Mon) at 15:39:31 +0100 (+0100), Peter Hessler wrote:
:On 2016 Sep 30 (Fri) at 10:16:19 +0200 (+0200), Peter Hessler wrote:
::This diff makes route get and route monitor work. sockaddr_bfd is so we
::can play like the other RTAX_* indexes in rti_info of route messages.
::
::OK?
::
:
On 2016 Sep 30 (Fri) at 10:16:19 +0200 (+0200), Peter Hessler wrote:
:This diff makes route get and route monitor work. sockaddr_bfd is so we
:can play like the other RTAX_* indexes in rti_info of route messages.
:
:OK?
:
:
:$ route -n monitor
:got messa
This diff makes route get and route monitor work. sockaddr_bfd is so we
can play like the other RTAX_* indexes in rti_info of route messages.
OK?
$ route -n monitor
got message of size 128 on Wed Sep 28 21:35:32 2016
RTM_BFD: bidirectional forwarding
12 matches
Mail list logo