From owner-freebsd-net Sun Apr 1 7:19:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from roaming.cacheboy.net (roaming.cacheboy.net [203.56.168.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3F637B71B; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 07:19:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from adrian@roaming.cacheboy.net) Received: (from adrian@localhost) by roaming.cacheboy.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f31EIeG48026; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:18:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from adrian) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:18:40 +0200 From: Adrian Chadd To: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai Cc: Eugene Polovnikov , net@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: nos-tun & multihomed machines Message-ID: <20010401161840.A47943@roaming.cacheboy.net> References: <20010316112914.A50671@zssm.zp.ua> <20010316105026.A12010@daemon.ninth-circle.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010316105026.A12010@daemon.ninth-circle.org>; from asmodai@wxs.nl on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 10:50:26AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Mar 16, 2001, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > -On [20010316 10:43], Eugene Polovnikov (paranoid@brain-fag.org) wrote: > >Please, review the following PR: > >http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=25847 > > > >Same patch is in the attach. > > Just a question, > > the gif interface now part of the system does tunneling as well in as > much the same way as nos-tun does. Does gif work for the multihomed > case? [I'll otherwise when not getting any responses dig up the answer > myself.] > I ask this because it serves no purpose having an IPv4-only [as far as > my knowledge goes] tunnel application, whilst we have a more flexible > new solution present. > > Translated, does gif do what nos-tun can do and more? Yes? Let's rip > out nos-tun and support the other well maintained solution. .. and, if you've compiled in the gif interface, you can't actually open a raw IP socket to the IPIP protocol, since the gif interface has it. This isn't documented anywhere, and its bitten me more than once (the error message returned isn't exactly the most helpful..) That said, nos-tun is a nice and simple example of how one would use the tunnel interface in their own program. Perhaps we might want to move it to /usr/share/examples/ ? Adrian, who now runs gif instead of nos-tun .. -- Adrian Chadd "Programming is like sex: One mistake and you have to support for a lifetime." -- rec.humor.funny To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sun Apr 1 8: 4:29 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from homer.softweyr.com (bsdconspiracy.net [208.187.122.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF9437B718 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 08:04:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=softweyr.com ident=37475e248472d1c348f197a82c9d1904) by homer.softweyr.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14jip1-00006O-00; Sun, 01 Apr 2001 08:27:15 -0600 Message-ID: <3AC73AC3.515F737B@softweyr.com> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 08:27:15 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brett Glass wrote: > > I need to move a PPP link from a pair of modems to a wireless network. > The wireless network has MAC layer bridges with Ethernet ports, so > basically what I need to do is reconfigure the client (running FreeBSD > 3.2 with security patches and userland PPP) and the server (also running > FreeBSD 3.2 with security patches, but with kernel PPP) to communicate > via PPPoE rather than via the modems. Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sun Apr 1 14:21:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2825B37B718 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:21:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00793; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:20:42 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 14:20:38 -0700 To: Wes Peters From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <3AC73AC3.515F737B@softweyr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 07:27 AM 4/1/2001, Wes Peters wrote: >Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? I don't see why it should be that inefficient. In fact, I've been thinking that due to header compression it might even be a bit faster. I'm doing it because we need a a machine on a wireless network to appear to be located at the hub. PPPoE creates a "tunnel" that does that. The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do not administer). Could you suggest a better solution? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sun Apr 1 16: 8: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from spider.pilosoft.com (p55-222.acedsl.com [160.79.55.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129AB37B71B for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:07:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@pilosoft.com) Received: from localhost (alexmail@localhost) by spider.pilosoft.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07683; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:12:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Pilosov To: Brett Glass Cc: Wes Peters , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Brett Glass wrote: > At 07:27 AM 4/1/2001, Wes Peters wrote: > > >Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? > > I don't see why it should be that inefficient. In fact, I've been > thinking that due to header compression it might even be a bit > faster. It IS terribly inefficient. Header compression doesn't do much for you. Ethernet over ATM overhead sucks enough, no need to add PPP headers. > I'm doing it because we need a a machine on a wireless network > to appear to be located at the hub. PPPoE creates a "tunnel" that > does that. The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can > hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE > makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which > would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do > not administer). Could you suggest a better solution? I'm hacking on a 'magic box' solution, which will essentially listen for ARP packets from box A to box B, reply with its own MAC, and then forward ethernet packets back onto the same wire, rewriting the MACs appropriately. -alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sun Apr 1 18:23:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E46937B71A for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:23:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02493; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:21:48 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010401192033.044a6390@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 19:21:45 -0600 To: Alex Pilosov From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE Cc: Wes Peters , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 05:12 PM 4/1/2001, Alex Pilosov wrote: >I'm hacking on a 'magic box' solution, which will essentially listen for >ARP packets from box A to box B, reply with its own MAC, and then forward >ethernet packets back onto the same wire, rewriting the MACs >appropriately. Sort of like static NAT. I was thinking of giving the machine a reserved address and doing static NAT for it, in and out of the same interface. Only problem with this is that the box at the far end is doing NAT for the machines behind it, too. So we'd get two layers of NAT. Slooooow. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 0:24:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from hq1.tyfon.net (hq1.tyfon.net [217.27.162.35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA08537B719 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:24:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dl@tyfon.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hq1.tyfon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF401C7DB for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:24:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hq1.tyfon.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7881C7B6 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:24:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:24:51 +0200 (CEST) From: Dan Larsson To: Subject: Fiberoptic ATM NIC for FreeBSD Message-ID: <20010402092309.R6197-100000@hq1.tyfon.net> Organization: Tyfon Svenska AB X-NCC-NIC: DL1999-RIPE X-NCC-RegID: se.tyfon MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by hq1.tyfon.net Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Any recommendations? Regards +------ Dan Larsson | Tel: +46 8 550 120 21 Tyfon Svenska AB | Fax: +46 8 550 120 02 GPG and PGP keys | finger dl@hq1.tyfon.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 1:19:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from vbook.express.ru (vbook.express.ru [212.24.37.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49EB637B71B; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 01:19:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vova@vbook.express.ru) Received: (from vova@localhost) by vbook.express.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA09637; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:19:45 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from vova) From: "Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15048.13856.683774.939154@vbook.express.ru> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:19:44 +0400 (MSD) To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: WaveLan (Orinco) question (FreeBSD and Windows wireless connection) X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi Can anybody help me with configuration of wireless network. I successful run network with number of WaveLan station with FreeBSD driver in adhoc mode: wi0: at port 0x240-0x27f irq 11 slot 0 on pccard0 in list I've found program to get firmware version, is shows: # ./wi wi0 fd20 > wi-version fd20: 001f 0001 0006 0006 I guess it 6.1, but I am not sure, So now I've trying to connect windows machine to this network - and I have no any success. I have no any access-point hardware in network. So questions are: need I upgrade firmware on my WaveLans ? what IEEE 802.11 mode I need to configure to use mixed network ? what drivers will be good for Windows for it ? May be there is to different answers like: "You need to use old windows driver ver X.X in adhoc demo mode" or "You need to upgrade firmware and use BSS mode" Please help me, I've read through FreeBSD mail-lists and found a lot of information but no anything like step by step successful configuration notice. -- TSB Russian Express, Moscow Vladimir B. Grebenschikov, vova@express.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 3: 4:38 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from germes.levi.spb.ru (ip65.levi.spb.ru [212.119.175.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF4737B720; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:04:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dms@wplus.net) Received: from wplus.net (IDENT:dms@pike.levi.spb.ru [10.246.8.43]) by germes.levi.spb.ru (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f32A3b725793; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 14:03:38 +0400 Message-ID: <3AC84E79.12762A22@wplus.net> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 14:03:37 +0400 From: Dmitry Samersoff Organization: LeviSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel O'Connor" Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Dynamic routing table (problem solved, was: server continue dies) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org My servers had died every 12h and I spend lots of time to solve problem, I hope the result of my work is interesting for community. The main reason of server fault is overloading of dynamic routing table (netstat -nra | grep W3) Another point - the same software running on non-Intel server (no-name PC with AHA SCSI and DEC net card) works without problems. I. Behavior of dynamic routing table controlled by sysctl variables: net.inet.ip.rtexpire net.inet.ip.rtminexpire net.inet.ip.rtmaxcache IMHO, default values of this variables should be changed to make heavy loaded servers more reliable or at least it should be documented. 1. net.inet.ip.rtexpire should be set to 10 not to 3600 by default This value slow down a bit intranet servers, but make heavy loaded www servers more reliable. I check this variable on some www servers around me and find that all really loaded ones have net.inet.ip.rtexpire=10 2. net.inet.ip.rtmaxcache should depend to maxusers. 3. kernel should drop first entries of DR independently of it's age, and rise appropriate error message to console if the table overloaded. II. I'm not sure whether or not my problem depends of fxp driver, but it's possible. Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On 27-Mar-01 Dmitry Samersoff wrote: > > I also have a kernel crash dump and could post it here if no one can > > give me a good advice without it ;-))) > > If you haven't compiled the kernel with debugging symbols then you should do so.. > > After that get a crash dump and do.. > > cd /var/crash > gdb -k kernel.0 vmcore.0 > bt > > And post the output. > > When you do post info like your dmesg output and hardware specs. > > > I'm terribly sorry to waste your time but this is critical problem > > and unfortunately I have no ideas how to solve it or at least > > find reason of such behavior. > > It does seem odd given the machien doesn't look _too_ busy. > > What sort of processes are you running on it? > Web server, ftp server, etc? > > Can you run top or ps and find out what particular processes are running at the time > it crashes? > > --- > Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer > for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au > "The nice thing about standards is that there > are so many of them to choose from." > -- Andrew Tanenbaum > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message -- Dmitry Samersoff, dms@wplus.net, ICQ:3161705 http://devnull.wplus.net * There will come soft rains ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 3:14:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A6EE237B719 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:14:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roam@orbitel.bg) Received: (qmail 2248 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Apr 2001 10:12:56 -0000 Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:12:56 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: Dmitry Samersoff Cc: Daniel O'Connor , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Dynamic routing table (problem solved, was: server continue dies) Message-ID: <20010402131256.M462@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: Dmitry Samersoff , Daniel O'Connor , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG References: <3AC84E79.12762A22@wplus.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3AC84E79.12762A22@wplus.net>; from dms@wplus.net on Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:03:37PM +0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:03:37PM +0400, Dmitry Samersoff wrote: > My servers had died every 12h and I spend lots of time to solve problem, > I hope the result of my work is interesting for community. > > The main reason of server fault is overloading of dynamic routing table > (netstat -nra | grep W3) > > Another point - the same software running on non-Intel server > (no-name PC with AHA SCSI and DEC net card) works without problems. > > > I. > Behavior of dynamic routing table controlled by sysctl variables: > net.inet.ip.rtexpire > net.inet.ip.rtminexpire > net.inet.ip.rtmaxcache > > IMHO, default values of this variables should be changed to make heavy > loaded > servers more reliable or at least it should be documented. I believe the reason those are sysctl's, instead of hard-wired kernel values, is that they be made tweakable (/etc/sysctl.conf comes to mind). As to documentation, yeah, that's a common problem for all the sysctl's :( G'luck, Peter -- Do you think anybody has ever had *precisely this thought* before? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 4:32:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from Awfulhak.org (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [194.222.196.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E67037B71E for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 04:32:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org [172.16.0.12]) by Awfulhak.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f32BWj820416; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:32:45 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@lan.Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f32Baae29702; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 12:36:36 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200104021136.f32Baae29702@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Jose M. Alcaide" Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: user-ppp problems In-Reply-To: Message from "Jose M. Alcaide" of "Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:46:51 +0200." <3AC5FBEB.E2F09D80@we.lc.ehu.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:36:35 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Hello, > > Some days ago I began to suffer strange problems with user-ppp > while trying to connect with one specific ISP. For example, > sometimes the connection fails to establish and the following > messages are logged: > > ... > tun0: Phase: bundle: Authenticate > tun0: Phase: deflink: his = CHAP 0x05, mine = none > tun0: Phase: Chap Input: CHALLENGE (16 bytes from AccEuskaltel) > tun0: Phase: Chap Output: RESPONSE (**************) > tun0: LCP: deflink: RecvEchoRequest(1) state = Opened > tun0: LCP: deflink: SendEchoReply(1) state = Opened > tun0: IPCP: deflink: Error: Unexpected IPCP in phase Authenticate (ignored) > last message repeated 3 times > tun0: LCP: deflink: RecvEchoRequest(2) state = Opened > tun0: LCP: deflink: SendEchoReply(2) state = Opened > tun0: IPCP: deflink: Error: Unexpected IPCP in phase Authenticate (ignored) > last message repeated 3 times > tun0: LCP: deflink: RecvEchoRequest(3) state = Opened > tun0: LCP: deflink: SendEchoReply(3) state = Opened > tun0: LCP: deflink: RecvEchoRequest(4) state = Opened > tun0: LCP: deflink: SendEchoReply(4) state = Opened > ... Your chap response isn't getting a success or failure reply, so ppp is still in the ``authenticate'' phase -- it's ignoring the IPCP packets sent by the peer. I'm not sure why the peer isn't sending the success/failure message. > Also, I am wondering about the LCP "RecvEchoRequest" and "SendEchoReply" > messages. Even when the connection is succesfully established, they > keep appearing all the time, _only_ with this specific ISP. I thought > that they could be related to LQR, but I disabled and denied LQR in > ppp.conf to no avail. Echo requests must be replied to (well, duplicate echo requests must be replied to, but ppp(8) always replies). > I updated the machine to 4.3-RC a few days ago, so that I borrowed > /usr/sbin/ppp from other machine still running 4.2-RELEASE (the compat4x > libraries are installed) and something different happenned, indeed: > while using 4.2R's ppp, I got these messages after the connection > was established: > > ... > tun0: Error: ip_Input: deflink: wrote 52, got Address family not supported by protocol family > tun0: Error: ip_Input: deflink: wrote 532, got Address family not supported by protocol family > last message repeated 3 times > tun0: Error: ip_Input: deflink: wrote 412, got Address family not supported by protocol family > tun0: Error: ip_Input: deflink: wrote 532, got Address family not supported by protocol family > tun0: Error: ip_Input: deflink: wrote 532, got Address family not supported by protocol family > ... > > The IPCP negotiation succeeds. However, a ping to the other end of the P-P > link does not work. OTOH, the "RecvEchoRequest" and "SendEchoReply" > messages are still being logged. Sounds like the tun interface is in I-want-an-address-family-on-the-front-of-packets mode. Unfortunately, later kernels don't reset this flag when the tun device is closed, so older versions of ppp won't work on an interface that a newer version of ppp has been run on. You could try using something like ``ppp -unit 100 blah'' to get around the problem (assuming the old version of ppp is new enough to understand -unit). > I suspect that something was broken in the ISP, so I would like to > be able to diagnose this problem before calling to their "support" > people (they don't know that there are other OS apart from Win**ws). > > Any ideas? > > [I am sending attached the full log of a failed connection] > > -- JMA > ****** Jose M. Alcaide // jose@we.lc.ehu.es // jmas@FreeBSD.org ****** > ** "Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers" -- Leonard Brandwein ** [.....] -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 5: 0:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au (ha1.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au [203.164.2.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D4FC37B722 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 05:00:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from s2209866@cse.unsw.edu.au) Received: from co3038206a ([203.164.177.110]) by mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010402120028.UBJW17266.mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au@co3038206a> for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:00:28 +1000 Reply-To: From: "Daniel Wong" To: Subject: Routing 4 machines... help! Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:01:21 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, I have four machines, configured as follows. Machine 1 (leaf node) (defaultrouter to internet gateway) fxp0 129.94.232.13 fxp1 172.21.10.24 Machine 2 (router) (defaultrouter to internet gateway) fxp0 129.94.232.14 fxp1 172.21.10.42 fxp2 10.0.0.25 Machine 3 (router) (defaultrouter to internet gateway) fxp0 129.94.232.14 fxp1 172.23.10.26 fxp2 10.0.0.52 Machine 4 (leaf node) (defaultrouter to internet gateway) fxp0 129.94.232.5 fxp1 172.23.10.62 Networks 129.94.232/24 - internet world 172.21/16 - network 1 (Machine 1/2) 172.23/16 - network 2 (Machine 3/4) 10/8 - network 3 (Machine 2/3) I need to get the machine 2 and 3 to route... but I can't get them to work... each machines all have working connections, I have tested this and each can ping adjacent machines. I have enabled net.inet.ip.forwarding and have added additional route (by using route add -net ...) When I try to ping from Machine 4 to Machine 1, it replies "sento: host is down" Can someone help me set this network up ?? I don't know what's wrong. I know that it's not being sent out to the internet cause, it behaves differently when I set add a route schema in. In my rc.conf I have enabled router_enabled="YES" and router="gated" (also tried with "routed") the network mask is set as above, though the defaultrouter is set to the router of the external network (129.94.232.254) Please quickly reply as I'm really stuck and need to get my router us as soon as possible. Regards Dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 7: 4: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cody.jharris.com (cody.jharris.com [205.238.128.83]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A3F37B718 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 07:04:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nick@rogness.net) Received: from localhost (nick@localhost) by cody.jharris.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f32F6oV97634; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:06:50 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nick@rogness.net) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:06:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Nick Rogness X-Sender: nick@cody.jharris.com To: Daniel Wong Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Routing 4 machines... help! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Daniel Wong wrote: > Hi, > > I have four machines, configured as follows. > > Machine 1 (leaf node) (defaultrouter to internet gateway) > fxp0 129.94.232.13 > fxp1 172.21.10.24 > > Machine 2 (router) (defaultrouter to internet gateway) > fxp0 129.94.232.14 > fxp1 172.21.10.42 > fxp2 10.0.0.25 > > Machine 3 (router) (defaultrouter to internet gateway) > fxp0 129.94.232.14 > fxp1 172.23.10.26 > fxp2 10.0.0.52 > > Machine 4 (leaf node) (defaultrouter to internet gateway) > fxp0 129.94.232.5 > fxp1 172.23.10.62 > > Networks > 129.94.232/24 - internet world > 172.21/16 - network 1 (Machine 1/2) > 172.23/16 - network 2 (Machine 3/4) > 10/8 - network 3 (Machine 2/3) > > I need to get the machine 2 and 3 to route... but I can't get them to > work... > each machines all have working connections, I have tested this and each can > ping adjacent machines. I have enabled net.inet.ip.forwarding and have added > additional route (by using route add -net ...) > > When I try to ping from Machine 4 to Machine 1, it replies "sento: host is > down" You need to either run a routing protocol of some kind or add static routes on ALL 4 of your machines. For static routes, these should work: Machine 1: # route add -net 10.0.0.0 172.21.10.42 -netmask 255.0.0.0 # route add -net 172.23.0.0 172.21.10.42 -netmask 255.255.0.0 Machine 2: # route add -net 172.23.0.0 10.0.0.52 -netmask 255.255.0.0 Machine 3: # route add -net 172.21.0.0 10.0.0.25 -netmask 255.255.0.0 Machine 4: # route add -net 172.21.0.0 172.23.10.26 -netmask 255.255.0.0 # route add -net 10.0.0.0 172.23.10.26 -netmask 255.0.0.0 > > Can someone help me set this network up ?? I don't know what's wrong. I know > that it's not being sent out to the internet cause, it behaves differently > when I set add a route schema in. In my rc.conf I have enabled > router_enabled="YES" and router="gated" (also tried with "routed") the > network mask is set as above, though the defaultrouter is set to the router > of the external network (129.94.232.254) > What routing protocol do you have gated setup to run? Nick Rogness - Keep on Routing in a Free World... "FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 7:43:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from polaris.we.lc.ehu.es (polaris.we.lc.ehu.es [158.227.6.43]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A4137B720 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 07:43:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jose@we.lc.ehu.es) Received: from v-ger.we.lc.ehu.es (v-ger [158.227.6.179]) by polaris.we.lc.ehu.es (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f32EhL901440; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:43:21 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from we.lc.ehu.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by v-ger.we.lc.ehu.es (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f32EhL202223; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:43:21 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jose@we.lc.ehu.es) Message-ID: <3AC89009.A9283E45@we.lc.ehu.es> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 16:43:21 +0200 From: "Jose M. Alcaide" Organization: Universidad del Pais Vasco - Dpto. de Electricidad y Electronica X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: es-ES, es, en-US, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Somers Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: user-ppp problems References: <200104021136.f32Baae29702@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brian Somers wrote: > > Your chap response isn't getting a success or failure reply, so ppp > is still in the ``authenticate'' phase -- it's ignoring the IPCP > packets sent by the peer. I'm not sure why the peer isn't sending > the success/failure message. This could explain some recent problems with this particular ISP. > > Also, I am wondering about the LCP "RecvEchoRequest" and "SendEchoReply" > > messages. Even when the connection is succesfully established, they > > keep appearing all the time, _only_ with this specific ISP. I thought > > that they could be related to LQR, but I disabled and denied LQR in > > ppp.conf to no avail. > > Echo requests must be replied to (well, duplicate echo requests must > be replied to, but ppp(8) always replies). Hmmm... But, is there any reason for the peer would be sending those "pings"? In addition, I started ping(8) on my system while watching the PPP log, and I noticed that some ICMP replies are delayed or even lost at the same time the peer sends its "ping". As a consequence, the overall throughput of TCP connections is seriously -and badly- affected. > Sounds like the tun interface is in > I-want-an-address-family-on-the-front-of-packets mode. > Unfortunately, later kernels don't reset this flag when the tun > device is closed, so older versions of ppp won't work on an interface Uh, oh. I didn't ever thought of a tun(4) behaviour change. Thanks very much, Brian! Your explanation was very useful. Cheers, -- JMA ****** Jose M. Alcaide // jose@we.lc.ehu.es // jmas@FreeBSD.org ****** ** "Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers" -- Leonard Brandwein ** To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 8:13:21 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from spider.pilosoft.com (p55-222.acedsl.com [160.79.55.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC1A37B718 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:13:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@pilosoft.com) Received: from localhost (alexmail@localhost) by spider.pilosoft.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA13157; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:19:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Pilosov To: Brett Glass Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010401192033.044a6390@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Brett Glass wrote: > >I'm hacking on a 'magic box' solution, which will essentially listen for > >ARP packets from box A to box B, reply with its own MAC, and then forward > >ethernet packets back onto the same wire, rewriting the MACs > >appropriately. > > Sort of like static NAT. I was thinking of giving the machine a reserved > address and doing static NAT for it, in and out of the same interface. NAT without rewriting IP headers. Better called "bridge with proxy-arp". > Only problem with this is that the box at the far end is doing NAT for > the machines behind it, too. So we'd get two layers of NAT. Slooooow. Not really. When you are not rewriting packets, what's to slow you down? And by requirements, packets from A to B _do_ have to go through central site. -alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 9:56:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mout0.freenet.de (mout0.freenet.de [194.97.50.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D558037B71A; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:56:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from netchild@leidinger.net) Received: from [194.97.50.138] (helo=mx0.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14k7cd-0007Tc-00; Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:56:07 +0200 Received: from a2ec4.pppool.de ([213.6.46.196] helo=Magelan.Leidinger.net) by mx0.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14k7cd-0007B4-00; Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:56:07 +0200 Received: from Leidinger.net (netchild@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Magelan.Leidinger.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f32Gq1I02500; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:52:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from netchild@Leidinger.net) Message-Id: <200104021652.f32Gq1I02500@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:52:00 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexander Leidinger Subject: Re: Recent interface/routing changes breaks on-demand PPP (+sppp) To: ru@FreeBSD.org Cc: net@FreeBSD.org, isdn@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20010331204534.B11966@sunbay.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by Magelan.Leidinger.net id f32Gq1I02500 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 31 M=E4r, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: [-isdn CCed,] Dear -isdn readers, we are talking about the actual behavior of -current, see -current and -net for the beginning of the discussion. >> >> If I use >> >> route add default -interface isp1 >> >> I wan't to have the packets routed trough isp1. I don't care about = how >> >> the routing table is held consistent, but I if the route is discard= ed >> >> without my interaction it not only violates POLA, in this case it's >> >> prohibits a valid use of the -interface feature (dial on demand via= sppp >> >> is broken at the moment). >> >>=20 >> > OK, finally got it. When the interface goes down, the address is st= ill >> > valid, and there is no reason to delete (static?) routes that use th= is >> > address, but the new code does. I was confused by the code comment = below >>=20 >> I didn't have a static IP address. The only static thing in this conte= xt >> is the interface the defaultroute is assigned to. At every >> dial-on-demand I get another IP. >>=20 > Well, if address is deleted from an interface, all routes that use it > will be invalidated (deleted) to avoid using the wrong address. This > patch only fixes interface down/up case, when address does not change. If "isp1" is a valid address in this context: it doesn't change. Here a little bit of cut&paste (your "#if 0" patch is applied) which perhaps gives you a hint what I have here: ---snip--- (3) netchild@ttyp1 % ifconfig isp1 isp1: flags=3Da010 mtu 1500 inet 0.0.0.0 --> 0.0.0.1 netmask 0xffff0000=20 ether 00:00:00:00:00:00 (4) netchild@ttyp1 % netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Ex= pire default 0:0:0:0:0:0 USc 0 1 isp1 0.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UH 0 0 isp1 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 2 4613 lo0 192.168.1 link#1 UC 1 0 ed0 =3D= > (5) netchild@ttyp1 % isdn-up # this is a SUID wrapper for "ifconfig isp= 1 up" (6) netchild@ttyp1 % ifconfig isp1 isp1: flags=3Da011 mtu 1500 inet 0.0.0.0 --> 0.0.0.1 netmask 0xffff0000=20 ether 00:00:00:00:00:00=20 (7) netchild@ttyp1 % netstat -rn =20 Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Ex= pire default 0:0:0:0:0:0 USc 0 1 isp1 0.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UH 0 0 isp1 0.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 UH 0 0 isp0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 2 4613 lo0 192.168.1 link#1 UC 1 0 ed0 =3D= > ---snip--- isp1 gets a new IP address after the ppp negotiation of sppp/isdnd. 0.0.0.0 -> 0.0.0.1 uses a documented hack in the i4b stack which discards the first packet to don't let go a packet with a wrong address (0.0.0.0) out of the computer. After a timeout or an "ifconfig isp1 down" it hangs up and the dynamic IP address of isp1 get's replaced by 0.0.0.0 again. The actual behavior of -current breaks the documented way of enabling dial-on-demand with sppp/isdnd. (To -isdn readers: after the first "ifconfig isp1 down" the defaultroute vanishes, after a manual "route add default -interface isp1" the route stays even with subsequent "ifconfig isp1 down", doing an additional "route add ..." is annoying, needs additional privileges and violates POLA) Bye, Alexander. --=20 Actually, Microsoft is sort of a mixture between the Borg and the Ferengi. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint =3D C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 10:45: 7 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E3837B71D for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:45:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10282; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:43:43 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010402114115.045a5230@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 11:43:39 -0600 To: Alex Pilosov From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010401192033.044a6390@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 09:19 AM 4/2/2001, Alex Pilosov wrote: >NAT without rewriting IP headers. Better called "bridge with proxy-arp". How would one set this up? Can it be done in-kernel without resorting to a transition to userland (as with natd)? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Mon Apr 2 10:45:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (whale.sunbay.crimea.ua [212.110.138.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AF237B722; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ru@whale.sunbay.crimea.ua) Received: (from ru@localhost) by whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f32HjGR78170; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:45:16 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from ru) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:45:16 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Alexander Leidinger Cc: net@FreeBSD.org, isdn@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Recent interface/routing changes breaks on-demand PPP (+sppp) Message-ID: <20010402204516.A74854@sunbay.com> Mail-Followup-To: Alexander Leidinger , net@FreeBSD.org, isdn@FreeBSD.org References: <20010331204534.B11966@sunbay.com> <200104021652.f32Gq1I02500@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104021652.f32Gq1I02500@Magelan.Leidinger.net>; from Alexander@leidinger.net on Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:52:00PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:52:00PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On 31 Mar, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > [-isdn CCed,] > > Dear -isdn readers, we are talking about the actual behavior of > -current, see -current and -net for the beginning of the discussion. > > >> >> If I use > >> >> route add default -interface isp1 > >> >> I wan't to have the packets routed trough isp1. I don't care about how > >> >> the routing table is held consistent, but I if the route is discarded > >> >> without my interaction it not only violates POLA, in this case it's > >> >> prohibits a valid use of the -interface feature (dial on demand via sppp > >> >> is broken at the moment). > >> >> > >> > OK, finally got it. When the interface goes down, the address is still > >> > valid, and there is no reason to delete (static?) routes that use this > >> > address, but the new code does. I was confused by the code comment below > >> > >> I didn't have a static IP address. The only static thing in this context > >> is the interface the defaultroute is assigned to. At every > >> dial-on-demand I get another IP. > >> > > Well, if address is deleted from an interface, all routes that use it > > will be invalidated (deleted) to avoid using the wrong address. This > > patch only fixes interface down/up case, when address does not change. > > If "isp1" is a valid address in this context: it doesn't change. > Nope, "isp1" is not an address, it is the pointer to an interface. Routing table entry has both pointer to an interface, and a pointer to one of its addresses. That is what you see in the output from ``route -vn get default'' command, as IFP and IFA sockaddrs. > Here a little bit of cut&paste (your "#if 0" patch is applied) > which perhaps gives you a hint what I have here: > ---snip--- > (3) netchild@ttyp1 % ifconfig isp1 > isp1: flags=a010 mtu 1500 > inet 0.0.0.0 --> 0.0.0.1 netmask 0xffff0000 > ether 00:00:00:00:00:00 > > (4) netchild@ttyp1 % netstat -rn > Routing tables > > Internet: > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire > default 0:0:0:0:0:0 USc 0 1 isp1 > 0.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UH 0 0 isp1 > 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 2 4613 lo0 > 192.168.1 link#1 UC 1 0 ed0 => > > (5) netchild@ttyp1 % isdn-up # this is a SUID wrapper for "ifconfig isp1 up" > > (6) netchild@ttyp1 % ifconfig isp1 > isp1: flags=a011 mtu 1500 > inet 0.0.0.0 --> 0.0.0.1 netmask 0xffff0000 > ether 00:00:00:00:00:00 > > (7) netchild@ttyp1 % netstat -rn > Routing tables > > Internet: > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire > default 0:0:0:0:0:0 USc 0 1 isp1 > 0.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UH 0 0 isp1 > 0.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 UH 0 0 isp0 > 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 2 4613 lo0 > 192.168.1 link#1 UC 1 0 ed0 => > ---snip--- > > isp1 gets a new IP address after the ppp negotiation of sppp/isdnd. > 0.0.0.0 -> 0.0.0.1 uses a documented hack in the i4b stack which > discards the first packet to don't let go a packet with a wrong address > (0.0.0.0) out of the computer. After a timeout or an "ifconfig isp1 > down" it hangs up and the dynamic IP address of isp1 get's replaced by > 0.0.0.0 again. The actual behavior of -current breaks the documented way > of enabling dial-on-demand with sppp/isdnd. > (To -isdn readers: after the first "ifconfig isp1 down" the defaultroute > vanishes, after a manual "route add default -interface isp1" the route > stays even with subsequent "ifconfig isp1 down", doing an additional > "route add ..." is annoying, needs additional privileges and violates > POLA) > OK, we fixed the "ifconfig down" case already. The attached patch alters inet routing code so that it does not delete routes with the "default" source address of 0.0.0.0; ip_output() will take care of choosing the right address. Please let me know if it works for you. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=p Index: in_rmx.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/netinet/in_rmx.c,v retrieving revision 1.39 diff -u -p -u -r1.39 in_rmx.c --- in_rmx.c 2001/03/19 09:16:16 1.39 +++ in_rmx.c 2001/04/02 17:25:57 @@ -416,6 +416,9 @@ in_ifadown(struct ifaddr *ifa) if (ifa->ifa_addr->sa_family != AF_INET) return 1; + if (((struct sockaddr_in *)ifa->ifa_addr)->sin_addr.s_addr == INADDR_ANY) + return 0; + arg.rnh = rnh = rt_tables[AF_INET]; arg.ifa = ifa; rnh->rnh_walktree(rnh, in_ifadownkill, &arg); --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 1:59:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from germes.levi.spb.ru (ip65.levi.spb.ru [212.119.175.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAE137B71E for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 01:59:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dms@wplus.net) Received: from wplus.net (IDENT:dms@pike.levi.spb.ru [10.246.8.43]) by germes.levi.spb.ru (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f338xN714300 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:59:24 +0400 Message-ID: <3AC990EB.8AA71A64@wplus.net> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:59:23 +0400 From: Dmitry Samersoff Organization: LeviSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Dynamic routing table Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dynamic routing table on my server (4.2-RELEASE) grow up infinitely. This is sample line of netstat -nra | grep W3 12.89.146.201 213.24.224.1 UGHW3 0 120 fxp0 => sysctl variables: net.inet.ip.rtexpire: 2 net.inet.ip.rtminexpire: 2 net.inet.ip.rtmaxcache: 4096 Have anybody ideas about reason of such behavior ? Thank you! -- Dmitry Samersoff, dms@wplus.net, ICQ:3161705 http://devnull.wplus.net * There will come soft rains ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 7:14:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mout1.freenet.de (mout1.freenet.de [194.97.50.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D3137B719; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:14:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from netchild@leidinger.net) Received: from [194.97.50.136] (helo=mx3.freenet.de) by mout1.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14kRZI-0003mx-00; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:14:00 +0200 Received: from b83f0.pppool.de ([213.7.131.240] helo=Magelan.Leidinger.net) by mx3.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14kRZE-0004Sb-00; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 16:13:56 +0200 Received: from Leidinger.net (netchild@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Magelan.Leidinger.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f33EDSm02426; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:13:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from netchild@Leidinger.net) Message-Id: <200104031413.f33EDSm02426@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:13:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexander Leidinger Subject: Re: Recent interface/routing changes breaks on-demand PPP (+sppp) To: ru@FreeBSD.org Cc: net@FreeBSD.org, isdn@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20010402204516.A74854@sunbay.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 2 Apr, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > OK, we fixed the "ifconfig down" case already. The attached patch alters > inet routing code so that it does not delete routes with the "default" > source address of 0.0.0.0; ip_output() will take care of choosing the > right address. Please let me know if it works for you. I reverted your "#if 0" patch (which worked for me) and applied this patch: no, didn't works, the route vanishes. Bye, Alexander. -- Where do you think you're going today? http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 7:24:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (whale.sunbay.crimea.ua [212.110.138.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB1D37B71B; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 07:24:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ru@whale.sunbay.crimea.ua) Received: (from ru@localhost) by whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f33ENlc65472; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:23:47 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from ru) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:23:47 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Alexander Leidinger Cc: net@FreeBSD.org, isdn@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Recent interface/routing changes breaks on-demand PPP (+sppp) Message-ID: <20010403172347.A64216@sunbay.com> Mail-Followup-To: Alexander Leidinger , net@FreeBSD.org, isdn@FreeBSD.org References: <20010402204516.A74854@sunbay.com> <200104031413.f33EDSm02426@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104031413.f33EDSm02426@Magelan.Leidinger.net>; from Alexander@leidinger.net on Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:13:27PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On 2 Apr, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > OK, we fixed the "ifconfig down" case already. The attached patch alters > > inet routing code so that it does not delete routes with the "default" > > source address of 0.0.0.0; ip_output() will take care of choosing the > > right address. Please let me know if it works for you. > > I reverted your "#if 0" patch (which worked for me) and applied this > patch: no, didn't works, the route vanishes. > Nope, you should not have been reverting the "#if 0" patch, you should have used both. The "#if 0" patch, like you called it, fixed the case when the route disappeared on ``ifconfig down''. Right? If I understood you correctly, the route still disappeared after a new IP address was negotiated with the peer. The last patch is a special hack for routes with the "default" (0.0.0.0) address; the routing code will not delete such routes. Or did I misunderstood something, and negotiated IP address is added as an alias address to an interface? How does the ``ifconfig'' output looks after the IP address is negotiated? (If the new address is an alias address, then the second patch is not required.) Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 10:14:37 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mout0.freenet.de (mout0.freenet.de [194.97.50.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB48337B722; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:14:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from netchild@leidinger.net) Received: from [194.97.50.138] (helo=mx0.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14kUNw-0002Do-00; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 19:14:28 +0200 Received: from a3b42.pppool.de ([213.6.59.66] helo=Magelan.Leidinger.net) by mx0.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14kUNv-0001Ed-00; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 19:14:27 +0200 Received: from Leidinger.net (netchild@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Magelan.Leidinger.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f33HDIm04806; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:13:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from netchild@Leidinger.net) Message-Id: <200104031713.f33HDIm04806@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:13:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexander Leidinger Subject: Re: Recent interface/routing changes breaks on-demand PPP (+sppp) To: ru@FreeBSD.org Cc: net@FreeBSD.org, isdn@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20010403172347.A64216@sunbay.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 3 Apr, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> On 2 Apr, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >> >> > OK, we fixed the "ifconfig down" case already. The attached patch alters >> > inet routing code so that it does not delete routes with the "default" >> > source address of 0.0.0.0; ip_output() will take care of choosing the >> > right address. Please let me know if it works for you. >> >> I reverted your "#if 0" patch (which worked for me) and applied this >> patch: no, didn't works, the route vanishes. >> > Nope, you should not have been reverting the "#if 0" patch, you should > have used both. Oh, ok. > The "#if 0" patch, like you called it, fixed the case when the route > disappeared on ``ifconfig down''. Right? With only the "#if 0" patch, everything worked as bevore the commit. > If I understood you correctly, the route still disappeared after a > new IP address was negotiated with the peer. The last patch is a No. > special hack for routes with the "default" (0.0.0.0) address; the > routing code will not delete such routes. Or did I misunderstood > something, and negotiated IP address is added as an alias address > to an interface? How does the ``ifconfig'' output looks after > the IP address is negotiated? (If the new address is an alias > address, then the second patch is not required.) This is the output with only the second patch applied and a connection to my ISP: ---snip--- (10) root@ttyp2 # route -vn get default u: inet 0.0.0.0; u: inet 0.0.0.0; u: link ; RTM_GET: Report Metrics: len 168, pid: 0, seq 1, errno 0, flags: locks: inits: sockaddrs: default default route to: default destination: default mask: default interface: isp1 flags: recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec rttvar hopcount mtu expire 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 locks: inits: sockaddrs: default isp1:0.0.0.0.0.0 default isp1:0.0.0.0.0.0 213.6.59.66 (11) root@ttyp2 # ifconfig isp1 isp1: flags=a051 mtu 1500 inet 213.6.59.66 --> 0.0.0.1 netmask 0xffff0000 ether 00:00:00:00:00:00 (13) root@ttyp2 # netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default 0:0:0:0:0:0 USc 30 2 isp1 0.0.0.1 213.6.59.66 UH 0 0 isp1 0.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 UH 0 0 isp0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 2 14817 lo0 192.168.1 link#1 UC 0 0 ed0 => ---snip--- Bye, Alexander. -- Loose bits sink chips. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 10:23:20 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mout0.freenet.de (mout0.freenet.de [194.97.50.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FA5637B71D; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:23:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from netchild@leidinger.net) Received: from [194.97.50.135] (helo=mx2.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14kUWM-0003nj-00; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 19:23:10 +0200 Received: from a35dd.pppool.de ([213.6.53.221] helo=Magelan.Leidinger.net) by mx2.freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14kUWH-00008g-00; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 19:23:06 +0200 Received: from Leidinger.net (netchild@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Magelan.Leidinger.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f33HDIm04806; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:13:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from netchild@Leidinger.net) Message-Id: <200104031713.f33HDIm04806@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:13:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexander Leidinger Subject: Re: Recent interface/routing changes breaks on-demand PPP (+sppp) To: ru@FreeBSD.org Cc: net@FreeBSD.org, isdn@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <20010403172347.A64216@sunbay.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 3 Apr, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> On 2 Apr, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >> >> > OK, we fixed the "ifconfig down" case already. The attached patch alters >> > inet routing code so that it does not delete routes with the "default" >> > source address of 0.0.0.0; ip_output() will take care of choosing the >> > right address. Please let me know if it works for you. >> >> I reverted your "#if 0" patch (which worked for me) and applied this >> patch: no, didn't works, the route vanishes. >> > Nope, you should not have been reverting the "#if 0" patch, you should > have used both. Oh, ok. > The "#if 0" patch, like you called it, fixed the case when the route > disappeared on ``ifconfig down''. Right? With only the "#if 0" patch, everything worked as bevore the commit. > If I understood you correctly, the route still disappeared after a > new IP address was negotiated with the peer. The last patch is a No. > special hack for routes with the "default" (0.0.0.0) address; the > routing code will not delete such routes. Or did I misunderstood > something, and negotiated IP address is added as an alias address > to an interface? How does the ``ifconfig'' output looks after > the IP address is negotiated? (If the new address is an alias > address, then the second patch is not required.) This is the output with only the second patch applied and a connection to my ISP: ---snip--- (10) root@ttyp2 # route -vn get default u: inet 0.0.0.0; u: inet 0.0.0.0; u: link ; RTM_GET: Report Metrics: len 168, pid: 0, seq 1, errno 0, flags: locks: inits: sockaddrs: default default route to: default destination: default mask: default interface: isp1 flags: recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec rttvar hopcount mtu expire 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0 locks: inits: sockaddrs: default isp1:0.0.0.0.0.0 default isp1:0.0.0.0.0.0 213.6.59.66 (11) root@ttyp2 # ifconfig isp1 isp1: flags=a051 mtu 1500 inet 213.6.59.66 --> 0.0.0.1 netmask 0xffff0000 ether 00:00:00:00:00:00 (13) root@ttyp2 # netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default 0:0:0:0:0:0 USc 30 2 isp1 0.0.0.1 213.6.59.66 UH 0 0 isp1 0.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 UH 0 0 isp0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 2 14817 lo0 192.168.1 link#1 UC 0 0 ed0 => ---snip--- Bye, Alexander. -- Loose bits sink chips. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 10:28: 0 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from peorth.iteration.net (peorth.iteration.net [208.190.180.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404BF37B725 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 10:27:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from keichii@peorth.iteration.net) Received: by peorth.iteration.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6EB7559531; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:27:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:27:56 -0500 From: "Michael C . Wu" To: David Xu Cc: Jonathan Graehl , Freebsd-Net Subject: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD Networking Performance Message-ID: <20010403122756.A905@peorth.iteration.net> Reply-To: "Michael C . Wu" Mail-Followup-To: "Michael C . Wu" , David Xu , Jonathan Graehl , Freebsd-Net References: <01295542.20010323085541@21cn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <01295542.20010323085541@21cn.com>; from bsddiy@21cn.com on Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 08:55:41AM +0800 X-PGP-Fingerprint: 5025 F691 F943 8128 48A8 5025 77CE 29C5 8FA1 2E20 X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x8FA12E20 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 08:55:41AM +0800, David Xu scribbled: | Friday, March 23, 2001, 3:12:19 AM, you wrote: | JG> Interesting topic in the linux kernel mailing list (Linux is "a lot" faster than | JG> FreeBSD): | JG> http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#2 | | JG> I came to use FreeBSD from Linux for servers because of kqueue. I stayed | JG> because I liked the entire system. I'm sure that Linux does TCP processing as | JG> fast as possible, and that in-kernel servers (NFS and the TUX webserver) are | JG> blazingly fast. | | JG> I do have Linux 2.4 running on an old machine, but I have no intention of taking | JG> down my FreeBSD box to dual boot Linux just to compare penis size. Has anyone | JG> recently done so? | I can confirm Linux 2.4 TCP/IP is faster than FreeBSD, they have | dynamic tuned TCP window, unlike we have a fixed max TCP window | set in SYSCTL. they have SACK and FACK, it is better in high speed line | than FreeBSD, it is also multi-threaded, better on SMP, someone | despise Linux should wakeup now, Linux is not so bad. I can confirm the following: A) You are a troll. B) The above "confirmation" states nothing. You fail to state the conditions of the test. You do not qualify your statements with facts. C) Want me to show you where FreeBSD wins? Let's try 4700 simultaneous users, constant 500KB/s network output with 800KB/s bursts, I/O on vinum with stable 80MB/s. Linux 2.4 or 2.2.x never stood up to even just half that load. D) Your posts are very good flame baits because I am writing this email. Has it ever occurred to you that your opinions might be stupid and ignorant? Please refrain from posting dumb emails. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | keichii@iteration.net | keichii@freebsd.org | | http://iteration.net/~keichii | Yes, BSD is a conspiracy. | +-----------------------------------------------------------+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 14:43: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from netbank.com.br (garrincha.netbank.com.br [200.203.199.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9111337B71B for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:43:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from riel@conectiva.com.br) Received: from imladris.rielhome.conectiva (3-142.cwb-adsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.193.162.142]) by netbank.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC4E4686B; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:42:09 -0300 (BRST) Received: from localhost (vfpkmo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imladris.rielhome.conectiva (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f33LG1707491; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:16:49 -0300 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:16:01 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-Sender: riel@imladris.rielhome.conectiva To: "Michael C . Wu" Cc: David Xu , Jonathan Graehl , Freebsd-Net Subject: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD Networking Performance In-Reply-To: <20010403122756.A905@peorth.iteration.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote: > I can confirm the following: > A) You are a troll. > B) The above "confirmation" states nothing. You fail > to state the conditions of the test. You do not qualify > your statements with facts. Neither do you. Does that make you a troll too? ;) Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 14:47:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from sherline.com (sherline.net [216.120.87.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9104A37B71D for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:47:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jgowdy@home.com) Received: (qmail 26116 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2001 21:47:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server2) (216.120.87.3) by 216.120.87.2 with SMTP; 3 Apr 2001 21:47:33 -0000 Message-ID: <000601c0bc87$ac955ad0$035778d8@sherline.net> From: "Jeremiah Gowdy" To: "Rik van Riel" , "Michael C . Wu" Cc: "David Xu" , "Jonathan Graehl" , "Freebsd-Net" References: Subject: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD Networking Performance Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:47:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Michael C . Wu wrote: > > > I can confirm the following: > > A) You are a troll. > > B) The above "confirmation" states nothing. You fail > > to state the conditions of the test. You do not qualify > > your statements with facts. > > Neither do you. Does that make you a troll too? ;) > He did qualify his statement, "You are a troll" with the statement "You do not qualify your statements with facts", therefore he did qualify his statement with a fact, therefore he does not qualify under his own terms as a troll. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 21:29:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from speedracer.speedtoys.com (speedracer.speedtoys.com [63.196.210.179]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9162337B71A for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:29:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gemohler@speedracer.speedtoys.com) Received: from localhost (gemohler@localhost) by speedracer.speedtoys.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f344V0H06187 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:31:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gemohler@speedracer.speedtoys.com) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:30:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Geoff Mohler X-Sender: gemohler@speedracer.speedtoys.com To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Jumbo Frames support for WX driver? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I know that Network Appliance uses the Intel GigE cards in thier boxes, and they have jumbo frames support... Im just wondering if since I use the same card in my FreeBSD box with a NetApp backend..if the wx driver has JF support as well? Anyone? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 22:14:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from pancake.NACSE.ORG (pancake.NACSE.ORG [128.193.34.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749FE37B719; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:14:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yoon@pancake.nacse.org) Received: from roc.NACSE.ORG (roc.NACSE.ORG [128.193.34.54]) by pancake.NACSE.ORG (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13865; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (yoon@localhost) by roc.NACSE.ORG (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20212; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:14:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:14:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Daehyun Yoon To: , Subject: Slow netstat -r printout Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi all, I'm having some strange problem with netstat. Every once in a while when I type netstat -r, it takes minutes until it displays the entire output. Sometimes it never finishes. Strange thing is if I type netstat -n or netstat -nr, it doesn't take more than a half a second to get the entire output. And when it tries to get the routing information during netstat -r, entire networking seems to stop. Is there any reason for that? I'm running FreeBSD 4.2, with @home cable modem. Please let me know if I should provide more information. Thanks a lot in advance. Regard, Dae H Yoon yoon at nacse dot org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 22:19:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from barabas.bitstream.net (barabas.bitstream.net [216.243.128.159]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 42AB937B737 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:19:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from airboss@bitstream.net) Received: (qmail 18571 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 05:19:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO amnesia.nodewarrior.org) (216.243.168.23) by barabas with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 05:19:45 -0000 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:19:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Dan Debertin X-X-Sender: To: Daehyun Yoon Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Slow netstat -r printout In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org It's taking so long because it's trying to do a DNS resolution of every IP address that it prints. My guess is that @Home uses some non-registered RFC1918 address space for its clients, so those addresses will never resolve, and will take forever not doing so. The -n flag disables DNS resolution, which is why it's so much faster. Dan Debertin Senior Systems Administrator Bitstream Underground airboss@bitstream.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 22:24:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from vbook.express.ru (vbook.express.ru [212.24.37.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE8FC37B71B for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:24:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vova@vbook.express.ru) Received: (from vova@localhost) by vbook.express.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA02813; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:09:45 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from vova) From: "Vladimir B. Grebenschikov" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15050.984.351798.488677@vbook.express.ru> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:09:44 +0400 (MSD) To: Jonathan Lemon Cc: deepak@ai.net, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FW: Network lockups on fxp0? In-Reply-To: <200103272253.f2RMrfG52107@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: <200103272253.f2RMrfG52107@prism.flugsvamp.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Jonathan Lemon writes: > >>fxp0: SCB timeout > >>fxp0: DMA timeout > >>(repeating) > > SCB timeout comes about because the chip is refusing to accept > any more commands; in this case, it probably is wedged. Is there > any pattern to this? Do you happen to have hardware flowcontrol > enabled? Does an ifconfig up/down fix the problem? My notebook shows such diagnostic after boot under M$ Windows, so I need to turn notebook off and then on to restore ethernet function. (I have VAIO-505S with IntellEtherExpress) So, may be it is some kind of state of ethernet chip ? > Jonathan -- TSB Russian Express, Moscow Vladimir B. Grebenschikov, vova@express.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Tue Apr 3 22:25: 9 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from xena.gsicomp.on.ca (cr677933-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com [24.43.230.149]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63CCC37B720; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 22:25:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from matt@gsicomp.on.ca) Received: from hermes (hermes.gsicomp.on.ca [192.168.0.18]) by xena.gsicomp.on.ca (8.11.1/8.11.3) with SMTP id f345N4R04805; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:23:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from matt@gsicomp.on.ca) Message-ID: <002001c0bcc7$a530b380$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> From: "Matthew Emmerton" To: "Dan Debertin" , "Daehyun Yoon" Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" References: Subject: Re: Slow netstat -r printout Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:25:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > It's taking so long because it's trying to do a DNS resolution of every IP > address that it prints. My guess is that @Home uses some non-registered > RFC1918 address space for its clients, so those addresses will never > resolve, and will take forever not doing so. The -n flag disables DNS > resolution, which is why it's so much faster. Do 'netstat -rn' once and record the RFC1918 addresses that @Home is using. Then add the appropriate entries to /etc/hosts. After that, you can do 'netstat -r' and the RFC1918 addresses will be resolved from /etc/hosts, which is much, much faster. -- Matt Emmerton To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 1:49:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from smtp.umr.edu (mrelay.cc.umr.edu [131.151.1.89]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E913237B718; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 01:49:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mrezny@umr.edu) Received: from Beast (Aven18570L@d-131-151-189-36.dynamic.umr.edu [131.151.189.36]) via SMTP by mrelay.cc.umr.edu (8.9.3/R.4.20) id DAA21587; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:49:32 -0500 Message-Id: <200104040849.DAA21587@mrelay.cc.umr.edu> From: "Matthew Rezny" To: "net@freebsd.org" , "stable@freebsd.org" , "isp@freebsd.org" Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:49:22 -0500 Reply-To: "Matthew Rezny" X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.10.2010) For Windows 2000 (5.0.2195;1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Intel Gigabit NIC problem Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'm posting this to a few lists that I hope I might get some info from. I have been using the fxp driver for quite a while with good results, so when it came time to get some gigabit stuff I looked and saw the wx driver. I decided it would be convenient to stick with Intel for several reasons. So now I have a handful of Compaq NC3131 boards with NC6132 modules. The NC3131 is a 64bit PCI card with a DEC 21154 (later revs have a chip stamped Intel but its id is the same as the DEC) PCI bridge and a couple Intel 82558 chips. It also has an expansion connector. The NC6132 module plugs onto this card to add a gigabit fiber port. The docs say its an Intel 82542 chip, though the actual chip on the boards are stamped LSI. I put them in a few machines here. A couple are x86 boxes with Windows 2000 and/or Linux, for which the Intel drivers work and they interconnect fine. The other is an Alpha running FreeBSD 4.2. The fxp and wx drivers load fine, but I have problems when I connect the gigabit port to another one of the machines. The FreeBSD machine repeated prints "wx0: receive sequence error" while the other machine is overwhelmed with 100% kernel/system CPU usage such that its barely responsive. Does anyone have any idea what's going on, if there's any hope of fixing this, and what the solution would be? Thanks. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 4: 6:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from skeezix.n0qds.org (skeezix.n0qds.org [204.246.69.106]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C0937B719 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:06:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gregp@n0qds.org) Received: from localhost (hogan.n0qds.org [204.246.69.105]) by skeezix.n0qds.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 224AFA5; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:06:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:06:34 -0500 From: Greg Putrich Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: Intel Gigabit NIC problem Cc: "net@freebsd.org" To: "Matthew Rezny" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.387) In-Reply-To: <200104040849.DAA21587@mrelay.cc.umr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v387) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010404110634.224AFA5@skeezix.n0qds.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I had the exact same problem with FreeBSD 4.1.1 and 4.2. It seems that Intel changed the chipset (as you saw) and now it doesn't work quite right. I gave up and got a 3Com gigabit ethernet NIC and that one is working fine. The Intel card is sitting in it's box right now. Greg On Wednesday, April 4, 2001, at 02:49 , Matthew Rezny wrote: > I'm posting this to a few lists that I hope I might get some info from. > > I have been using the fxp driver for quite a while with good results, > so when it came time to get some gigabit stuff I > looked and saw the wx driver. I decided it would be convenient to stick > with Intel for several reasons. So now I have a > handful of Compaq NC3131 boards with NC6132 modules. > > The NC3131 is a 64bit PCI card with a DEC 21154 (later revs have a chip > stamped Intel but its id is the same as the > DEC) PCI bridge and a couple Intel 82558 chips. It also has an > expansion connector. The NC6132 module plugs onto > this card to add a gigabit fiber port. The docs say its an Intel 82542 > chip, though the actual chip on the boards are > stamped LSI. > > I put them in a few machines here. A couple are x86 boxes with Windows > 2000 and/or Linux, for which the Intel drivers > work and they interconnect fine. The other is an Alpha running FreeBSD > 4.2. The fxp and wx drivers load fine, but I have > problems when I connect the gigabit port to another one of the > machines. The FreeBSD machine repeated prints > "wx0: receive sequence error" while the other machine is overwhelmed > with 100% kernel/system CPU usage such > that its barely responsive. > > Does anyone have any idea what's going on, if there's any hope of > fixing this, and what the solution would be? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 4: 7:14 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au (ha1.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au [203.164.2.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78ABF37B71C for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from s2209866@cse.unsw.edu.au) Received: from co3038206a ([203.164.177.110]) by mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010404110709.YLII17266.mss.rdc2.nsw.optushome.com.au@co3038206a> for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:07:09 +1000 Reply-To: From: "Daniel Wong" To: Subject: how to generate a custom ICMP packet from kernel ?? Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:07:49 +1000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, I've set up my own ICMP type - type 40 (ICMP_PROBE) which is to be used for probing the network's conjestion etc... (don't want to bore you with details) anyways... I've tried to imitate the way that icmp_error generates and icmp packet, but I have no idea why it's not sending... below is the piece of code I'm building the icmp packet with. If you can find anything wrong with it (it maybe to do with the offset ?) or know why it might not be able to pass through the ip_output, please please please help me solve this problem! I pass in three arguments: mbuf *m; /* the memory buffer of the a packet for a particular flow of which I'm inspecting*/ dport and sport ar the destination and source ports of the flow it all compiles and runs without interferring with normal flow of packets. /***** starts here _________________ ip_icmp.c _______******/ void icmp_sendprobe( m, dport, sport ) struct mbuf *m; u_short dport; u_short sport; { struct mbuf *nbuf, *opts = 0; struct icmp *icp; struct ip *oip, *nip; oip = mtod(m, struct ip *); nbuf = m_gethdr(M_DONTWAIT, MT_HEADER); if (nbuf == NULL) { printf("Probe not created!"); return; } nbuf->m_len = ICMP_PRBLEN; MH_ALIGN(nbuf, nbuf->m_len); icp = mtod(nbuf, struct icmp *); icp->icmp_type = ICMP_PROBE; icp->icmp_code = 0; /* setting up probe */ icp->icmp_pmdst = dport; icp->icmp_pmsrc = sport; /* zero out flow information */ icp->icmp_pm_flowinfo = 0; icp->icmp_pm_dir = ICMP_PM_DIR_FWD; if (nbuf->m_data - sizeof(struct ip) < nbuf->m_pktdat) panic("icmp_probe len"); /* moved the data pointer upwards */ nbuf->m_data -= sizeof(struct ip); /* increase the length of the packet */ nbuf->m_len += sizeof(struct ip); nbuf->m_pkthdr.len = nbuf->m_len; /* set the receive interface */ nbuf->m_pkthdr.rcvif = m->m_pkthdr.rcvif; nip = mtod(nbuf, struct ip *); /* copy the tcp/udp packet's IP header */ bcopy((caddr_t)oip, (caddr_t)nip, sizeof(struct ip)); nip->ip_len = nbuf->m_len; nip->ip_vhl = IP_VHL_BORING; nip->ip_p = IPPROTO_ICMP; nip->ip_tos = 0; nip->ip_ttl = MAXTTL; nbuf->m_flags &= ~(M_BCAST|M_MCAST); icmp_send( nbuf, opts ); } /**** ends here ____________________ ip_icmp.c ______*****/ icmp_send unchanged and used to send the packet out Regards Dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 10:18:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.scientech.com (mail.scientech.com [198.60.89.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9547E37B720 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 10:18:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cmott@scientech.com) Received: from [10.128.1.35] ([10.128.1.35]) by mail.scientech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29515 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:18:22 -0600 Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:18:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Charles Mott To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: DS-3 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org What DS-3 PCI cards are on the market? I'm willing to write a driver if one does not already exist. My main concern is that the SBS (WANic) drivers I have seen for linux have partially proprietary source code. If I am going to have to write a driver, I'd rather do for the *BSD operating systems. Charles Mott To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 17:59:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from molly.straylight.com (molly.straylight.com [209.68.199.242]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704E637B43F; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:59:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jonathan@graehl.org) Received: from dickie (case.straylight.com [209.68.199.244]) by molly.straylight.com (8.11.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id f350xig04593; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:59:44 -0700 From: "Jonathan Graehl" To: "Freebsd-Net" Cc: "Jonathan Lemon" Subject: please document that kevent does not automatically restart when interrupted by signals Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:59:53 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org It is my understanding that an unmasked signal will always interrupt a call to kevent, even if SA_RESTART is specified in sigaction, or siginterrupt(signo, 0) is used. Can this be officially documented so that it can be relied upon? I want signals to interrupt kevent; I would like to be able to use SA_RESTART so that I don't have to check for an EINTR except from kevent, but I wouldn't want kevent restarted for me should the implementation change out from under me. Other signal interrupt / restart questions: Can a signal ever interrupt a (nonblocking) datagram write/read (possibly truncating a datagram due to a partial read/write count)? (my guess: not unless you're sleeping awaiting a datagram with a blocking read) Is this behavior documented? Can a signal ever interrupt an I/O on a nonblocking fd, such that the I/O will return EINTR rather than EAGAIN or a partial success? (my guess: no, I don't need to check for EINTR for nonblocking fds even if I siginterrupt(signo, 1)) Is this documented? I currently use SA_RESTART, assume that EINTR will never be returned, except I expect EINTR to be returned immediately by kevent so I can get my signal and process it in a synchronous fashion outside of my event handling logic. Relying on undocumented behavior makes me nervous. Are there any other system calls I should worry about returning EINTR even when I specify SA_RESTART? Thanks, -- Jonathan Graehl http://jonathan.graehl.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 18:35:46 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lotl.clari.net.au (lotl.clari.net.au [203.26.127.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5D137B446 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:35:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stephen@clari.net.au) Received: from theforce.clari.net.au (theforce.clari.net.au [203.8.14.120]) by lotl.clari.net.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA97400 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:35:38 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from stephen@clari.net.au) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:37:13 +1000 (EST) Organization: ClariNET Internet Solutions From: Stephen Cimarelli To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Problems with Dummynet and 4.2 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi All I compile dummynet support into 4.2.20010309-stable, it compiled fine but when I try to use it I get kernel crash.. This is what I tried >ipfw add pipe 1 ip from any to any >ipfw pipe 1 config bw 128Kbit/s queue 10 >ping 203.8.14.120 Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode? can anyone help? if you need more info, tell me what you need. ---------------------------------- E-Mail: Stephen Cimarelli Date: 05-Apr-01 Time: 11:31:01 ClariNet Internet Solutions +61 3 9486 0811 www.clari.net.au ---------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 19:18:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (cb58709-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.17.241.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369B037B446; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:18:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jlemon@flugsvamp.com) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f352D3d06876; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:13:03 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:13:03 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon To: Jonathan Graehl Cc: Freebsd-Net , Jonathan Lemon Subject: Re: please document that kevent does not automatically restart when interrupted by signals Message-ID: <20010404211303.I70724@prism.flugsvamp.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 05:59:53PM -0700, Jonathan Graehl wrote: > It is my understanding that an unmasked signal will always interrupt a call to > kevent, even if SA_RESTART is specified in sigaction, or siginterrupt(signo, 0) > is used. Yes. > Can this be officially documented so that it can be relied upon? I want signals > to interrupt kevent; I would like to be able to use SA_RESTART so that I don't > have to check for an EINTR except from kevent, but I wouldn't want kevent > restarted for me should the implementation change out from under me. From the sigaction(2) manual page: If a signal is caught during the system calls listed below, the call may be forced to terminate with the error EINTR, the call may return with a data transfer shorter than requested, or the call may be restarted. Restart of pending calls is requested by setting the SA_RESTART bit in sa_flags. The affected system calls include open(2), read(2), write(2), sendto(2), recvfrom(2), sendmsg(2) and recvmsg(2) on a communications channel or a slow device (such as a terminal, but not a regular file) and during a wait(2) or ioctl(2). However, calls that have already committed are not restarted, but instead return a partial success (for example, a short read count). My interpretation of this is that only the above system calls will allow SA_RESTART to restart an interrupted call. However, the list above seems to be incomplete. kevent (and signal, and poll) will not automatically restart, regardless of the setting of SA_RESTART. The same is true for nanosleep, connect, aio_suspend, and aio_waitcomplete. This short list was obtained by looking at the source, I'm not aware of any place where all these calls are listed. > Other signal interrupt / restart questions: > > Can a signal ever interrupt a (nonblocking) datagram write/read (possibly > truncating a datagram due to a partial read/write count)? (my guess: not unless > you're sleeping awaiting a datagram with a blocking read) Is this behavior > documented? > > Can a signal ever interrupt an I/O on a nonblocking fd, such that the I/O will > return EINTR rather than EAGAIN or a partial success? (my guess: no, I don't > need to check for EINTR for nonblocking fds even if I siginterrupt(signo, 1)) > Is this documented? EINTR should (as far as I know) only be returned if a signal interrupts the syscall when it was in the middle of a sleep. If you are doing non-blocking I/O, then the system should not be sleeping, so EINTR should never be returned. No, I don't think that this is explicitly laid out anywhere in the manual pages, though. > I currently use SA_RESTART, assume that EINTR will never be returned, except I > expect EINTR to be returned immediately by kevent so I can get my signal and > process it in a synchronous fashion outside of my event handling logic. Relying > on undocumented behavior makes me nervous. Are there any other system calls I > should worry about returning EINTR even when I specify SA_RESTART? Other than the short list I gave above, I don't think so. But again, I don't think this is documented anywhwere. Perhaps someone else wants to chime in here? -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 21: 5: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx.databus.com (p101-44.acedsl.com [160.79.101.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DA337B42C; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:05:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from barney@mx.databus.com) Received: (from barney@localhost) by mx.databus.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f3544dP06152; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:04:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:04:39 -0400 From: Barney Wolff To: Jonathan Lemon Cc: Jonathan Graehl , Freebsd-Net , Jonathan Lemon Subject: Re: please document that kevent does not automatically restart when interrupted by signals Message-ID: <20010405000438.A6087@mx.databus.com> References: <20010404211303.I70724@prism.flugsvamp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20010404211303.I70724@prism.flugsvamp.com>; from jlemon@flugsvamp.com on Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:13:03PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Are you sure that this will never be made untrue by a fine-grained smp implementation? Other than for popular-press benchmarks, asking what FreeBSD will guarantee is the wrong question, imho. Writing production code that's non-portable is hardly ever the right choice. Of course if you're using kevent you've already decided the other way. The manpages should document what is very unlikely to change across releases, but I don't think even that is an absolute commitment. Posix is a much safer bet. Barney Wolff, who has been asked about his own 15-year-old code, and is sure that others can beat that by a mile. On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:13:03PM -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > EINTR should (as far as I know) only be returned if a signal interrupts > the syscall when it was in the middle of a sleep. If you are doing > non-blocking I/O, then the system should not be sleeping, so EINTR should > never be returned. No, I don't think that this is explicitly laid out > anywhere in the manual pages, though. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Wed Apr 4 21:29:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from online.tmx.com.au (online.tmx.com.au [192.150.129.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D60237B42C for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:29:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mtaylor@bytecraft.com.au) Received: from melexc01.bytecraft.com.au ([203.9.250.249]) by online.tmx.com.au (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA16697 for Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:29:24 +1000 (EST) Received: by MELEXC01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <2J8512LQ>; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:30:47 +1000 Message-ID: <710709BB8B02D311942E0060674418105442B9@MELEXC01> From: Murray Taylor To: "'freebsd-net@freebsd.org'" Subject: Routing question Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:30:06 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Given the route table and ifconfig output applying to the host sketched below, and setting a gateway value into the windoze machines of 10.1.2.30, what else is necessary to allow them to web browse via the frame relay link?? I have read somewhere that when aliasing IP numbers there should also be a static route between the alias and localhost? Is this the fix I need? The xxx.yyy.zzz addrsses are the defined point to point link addresses, The aaa.bbb.ccc address is one of the assigned range allocated to us and we are still using the 10.1.2 range on all the internal Win machines (legacy and hopefully to be dropped RSN) But I need a fix now ;-) I have a DNS operating on spyder for the aaa.bbb.ccc and 127.0.0 numbers / hosts and a pair of virtual websites also.. none of the Win machines are using DNS (the aaa.bbb.ccc address is an alias on the fxp port) btw the natd daemon is running and ipfw is in place based on the "simple" rc.firewall rules, and I am using this kernel made from sources cvsupped about a week earlier FreeBSD 4.3-BETA (SPYDER-SR) #0: Sun Mar 18 14:31:31 EST 2001 cheers Murray Taylor Project Engineer Bytecraft P/L +61 3 9587 2555 +61 3 9587 1614 fax mtaylor@bytecraft.com.au spyder# netstat -nr Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default xxx.yyy.zzz.1 UGSc 8 39076 ng0 10.1/16 link#1 UC 0 0 fxp0 => 10.1.2.2 0:0:f8:78:97:b7 UHLW 0 1667 fxp0 1172 10.1.2.3 0:0:f8:1e:ad:9e UHLW 2 298 fxp0 1192 10.1.2.4 0:60:67:70:af:22 UHLW 0 16257 fxp0 1164 10.1.2.7 0:60:67:70:ac:4e UHLW 1 2822 fxp0 1182 10.1.2.22 link#1 UHLW 1 2 fxp0 => 10.1.2.30 0:50:8b:f1:de:df UHLW 1 921 lo0 10.1.2.46 0:10:a4:ff:b4:c6 UHLW 1 288 fxp0 1120 10.1.2.60 0:80:5f:3a:e3:41 UHLW 0 181 fxp0 1073 10.1.2.78 0:0:4c:ed:78:5e UHLW 2 4467 fxp0 1138 10.1.255.255 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff UHLWb 2 2527 fxp0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 0 581 lo0 xxx.yyy.zzz.1 xxx.yyy.zzz.13 UH 8 0 ng0 aaa.bbb.ccc.0 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff UHLWb 0 14 fxp0 => aaa.bbb.ccc/26 link#1 UC 0 0 fxp0 => aaa.bbb.ccc.1 0:50:8b:f1:de:df UHLW 0 137 lo0 spyder# ifconfig -a fxp0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 inet 10.1.2.30 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 10.1.255.255 inet aaa.bbb.ccc.1 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast aaa.bbb.ccc.63 ether 00:50:8b:f1:de:df media: autoselect (100baseTX ) status: active supported media: autoselect 100baseTX 100baseTX 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 ng0: flags=88d1 mtu 1500 inet xxx.yyy.zzz.13 --> xxx.yyy.zzz.1 netmask 0xffffffe0 tun0: flags=8010 mtu 1500 xxx.yyy.zzz.1 (Telco gateway) | | | spyder | frame relay +--------+ | point to point | | +----------------|ng0 | xxx.yyy.zzz.13 | | | | 10.1.2.30 | fxp0|---------------+ | | aaa.bbb.ccc.1 | |FreeBSD | | |4.3Beta | | +--------+ | | | | other 10.1.x.y hosts ---------------+ predominantly M$ win9x To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 2: 1:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from info.iet.unipi.it (info.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.184]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1FB37B50B for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:01:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@info.iet.unipi.it) Received: (from luigi@localhost) by info.iet.unipi.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA87696; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:00:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from luigi) From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <200104050900.LAA87696@info.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: Problems with Dummynet and 4.2 In-Reply-To: from Stephen Cimarelli at "Apr 5, 2001 11:37:13 am" To: Stephen Cimarelli Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:00:52 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Hi All > > I compile dummynet support into 4.2.20010309-stable, it compiled fine > but when I try to use it I get kernel crash.. > > > This is what I tried > > >ipfw add pipe 1 ip from any to any > >ipfw pipe 1 config bw 128Kbit/s queue 10 > >ping 203.8.14.120 > > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode? > > can anyone help? if you need more info, tell me what you need. there used to be a problem approx the time of your snap related to per-interface stat counters. It should be fixed by now. Re-cvsup and rebuild a kernel. cheers luigi > > > ---------------------------------- > E-Mail: Stephen Cimarelli > Date: 05-Apr-01 > Time: 11:31:01 > ClariNet Internet Solutions > +61 3 9486 0811 > www.clari.net.au > ---------------------------------- > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 8:43:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from hand.dotat.at (w149.z064000151.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net [64.0.151.149]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4B3137B496 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:43:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fanf@dotat.at) Received: from fanf by hand.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.20 #3) id 14hcxR-0003U5-00; Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:47:17 +0000 Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:47:17 +0000 From: Tony Finch To: Tommi Harkonen Cc: Garrett Wollman , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RTM_LOSING: Kernel Suspects Partitioning: Message-ID: <20010326194717.J386@hand.dotat.at> References: <20010322124742.A9984@teliafi.net> <200103221643.LAA30673@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20010323090102.B9984@teliafi.net> <200103231711.MAA42834@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <200103231711.MAA42834@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; <20010324145154.A27634@teliafi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010324145154.A27634@teliafi.net> Organization: Covalent Technologies, Inc Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Tommi Harkonen wrote: >Garrett Wollman wrote: >> >> Clearly, your packets are not getting anywhere. > > Traceroute & ping works fine from the box and everything to the box (still) >works and I have checked, double checked and triple checked all settings This sounds like a problem with path MTU discovery not working. Small packets get through but big ones don't. This is usually an indication of an incorrectly configured ICMP filter somewhere along the route, but if that were the case I would expect ping and traceroute to fail too. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 9:48:57 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from homer.softweyr.com (bsdconspiracy.net [208.187.122.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3867837B63F for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=softweyr.com) by homer.softweyr.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14l1EF-00004n-00; Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:18:40 -0600 Message-ID: <3ACBF21F.72FB2076@softweyr.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:18:39 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernie Doehner Cc: Brett Glass , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Bernie Doehner wrote: > > Certain tunneling implementations use PPPoe. I'm well aware of that. These are generally referred to as "bad" or "stupid" tunnels, because PPPoE is such a wasteful protocol. Unless you really need to route IPX, AppleTalk, or DECnet packets across the tunnel, in which case it's no worse than anything else. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 9:48:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from homer.softweyr.com (bsdconspiracy.net [208.187.122.220]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09DD37B496 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:48:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=softweyr.com) by homer.softweyr.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14l18Q-00004i-00; Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:12:39 -0600 Message-ID: <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:12:38 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brett Glass Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brett Glass wrote: > > At 07:27 AM 4/1/2001, Wes Peters wrote: > > >Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? > > I don't see why it should be that inefficient. Because PPP encapsulation adds a lot of non-information. > In fact, I've been > thinking that due to header compression it might even be a bit > faster. Nope, no amount of IP header compression can match the PPP overhead. > I'm doing it because we need a a machine on a wireless network > to appear to be located at the hub. PPPoE creates a "tunnel" that > does that. So does any other tunnel, including a very simple IP in IP tunnel. The problem with such a simple tunnel is that you typically end up splitting most packets into two packets in the tunnel, using your available band- width very poorly. > The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can > hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE > makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which > would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do > not administer). Could you suggest a better solution? Sounds like an interesting network configuration. I don't know of a tunnel program like I described above, but it would be pretty simple to develop one using the tun device in FreeBSD. If you don't have FreeBSD at both ends, PPPoE or another tunnelling application probably is your best choice. It would be worth searching for a solution with less overhead than PPPoE. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 10:21:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from herbelot.dyndns.org (s014.dhcp212-198-24.noos.fr [212.198.24.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28BB37B422 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:21:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from thierry@herbelot.com) Received: from herbelot.com (multi.herbelot.nom [192.168.1.2]) by herbelot.dyndns.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10224 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:21:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from thierry@herbelot.com) Message-ID: <3ACCA9A7.DEDE2DE5@herbelot.com> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:21:43 +0200 From: Thierry Herbelot X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: net@freebsd.org Subject: test Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Is there something broken ? I don't get any message on most FreeBSD mailing lists, on two different adresses TfH -- Thierry Herbelot To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 10:30:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.dellroad.org (adsl-63-194-81-26.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.194.81.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9F737B496; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:30:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie@dellroad.org) Received: from arch20m.dellroad.org (arch20m.dellroad.org [10.1.1.20]) by InterJet.dellroad.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA05960; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from archie@localhost) by arch20m.dellroad.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f35HIcF73652; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:18:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <200104051718.f35HIcF73652@arch20m.dellroad.org> Subject: Re: mbuf leak? fxp? In-Reply-To: <200103312350.f2VNon305299@bubba.packetdesign.com> "from Archie Cobbs at Mar 31, 2001 03:50:49 pm" To: Archie Cobbs Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL82 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Archie Cobbs writes: > I have this machine that starts running out of mbufs every few days > ("looutput: mbuf allocation failed") and then crashes, and was wondering > if anyone else has seen similar behavior... > > For example... > > Yesterday... > $ netstat -m > 461/624/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > 459 mbufs allocated to data > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > 434/490/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 1136 Kbytes allocated to network (36% of mb_map in use) > 0 requests for memory denied > 0 requests for memory delayed > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > Today... > $ netstat -m > 947/1072/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > 945 mbufs allocated to data > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > 920/946/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > 2160 Kbytes allocated to network (70% of mb_map in use) > 0 requests for memory denied > 0 requests for memory delayed > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > It appears that something is slowly eating up mbuf clusters. > The machine is on a network with continuous but very low volume > traffic, including some random multicast, NTP, etc. The machine > itself is doing hardly anything at all. Well, my current guess is that this is simply an NMBCLUSTERS problem. I increased NMBCLUSTERS to 8192 and it hasn't happened again yet. This machine has 5 ethernet interfaces, which must be probably more than the default NMBCLUSTERS can handle. I wonder if we should increase the default NMBCLUSTERS, or document somewhere that > 4 interfaces requires doing so? Thanks for all the suggestions... -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 10:39:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from whizzo.transsys.com (whizzo.TransSys.COM [144.202.42.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D39937B42C for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:39:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from louie@whizzo.transsys.com) Received: from whizzo.transsys.com (localhost.transsys.com [127.0.0.1]) by whizzo.transsys.com (8.11.3/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f35Hcsn53390; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:38:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from louie@whizzo.transsys.com) Message-Id: <200104051738.f35Hcsn53390@whizzo.transsys.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Wes Peters Cc: Brett Glass , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG X-Image-URL: http://www.transsys.com/louie/images/louie-mail.jpg From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:12:38 MDT." <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:38:54 -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can > > hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE > > makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which > > would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do > > not administer). Could you suggest a better solution? > > Sounds like an interesting network configuration. I don't know of a tunnel > program like I described above, but it would be pretty simple to develop > one using the tun device in FreeBSD. If you don't have FreeBSD at both > ends, PPPoE or another tunnelling application probably is your best choice. > It would be worth searching for a solution with less overhead than PPPoE. It's hard to imagine how PPPoE is going to add more overhead than, e.g., 20 bytes for IP-in-IP. This is an interesting application for PPPoE, which I don't think was anticipated in the initial design, but it sure seems like it would work. A question you have to ask yourself is by what metric do you measure "overhead?" Is it bytes on the wire, CPU cycles in the boxes at the ends, or administrative "costs" in operating a system. Various schemes each will have their own characteristics for each of these metrics. I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology be made on simply the number of bytes on the wire; there are other things to consider as well. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 10:40:45 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from smtp.gwi.net (smtp.gwi.net [207.5.128.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909C437B496 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:40:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kclapp@gwi.net) Received: from sss1.gwi.net (sss1.gwi.net [207.5.128.36]) by smtp.gwi.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f35HeeE19474; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss1.gwi.net (sss1.gwi.net [207.5.128.36]) by sss1.gwi.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f35HeeU12710; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:40:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Karl Clapp To: Thierry Herbelot Cc: Subject: Re: test In-Reply-To: <3ACCA9A7.DEDE2DE5@herbelot.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Recieved and Confirmed.. Thanks, Karl Clapp kclapp@sss1.gwi.net ********************************** Great Works Internet Technical Support Department Online Help http://support.gwi.net support@gwi.net 1.800.229.2096 ********************************** On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Thierry Herbelot wrote: > Is there something broken ? > > I don't get any message on most FreeBSD mailing lists, on two different > adresses > > TfH > -- > Thierry Herbelot > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 12:16:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from whizzo.transsys.com (whizzo.TransSys.COM [144.202.42.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF73137B42C for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:16:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from louie@whizzo.transsys.com) Received: from whizzo.transsys.com (localhost.transsys.com [127.0.0.1]) by whizzo.transsys.com (8.11.3/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f35JG5n54176; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:16:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from louie@whizzo.transsys.com) Message-Id: <200104051916.f35JG5n54176@whizzo.transsys.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 Cc: Wes Peters , Brett Glass , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG X-Image-URL: http://www.transsys.com/louie/images/louie-mail.jpg From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> <200104051738.f35Hcsn53390@whizzo.transsys.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:38:54 EDT." <200104051738.f35Hcsn53390@whizzo.transsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:16:05 -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was > terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte > IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology > be made on simply the number of bytes on the wire; there are other > things to consider as well. Ooops, must have been smoking some of Jordan's crack. That's more like 14 bytes rather than 4. Still, we're in the same ballpark at other schemes of tunneling over ethernet. I think that the code path-length might be a bit longer for PPPoE, but that's a wild-ass guess. I have a suspicion that there's slightly more overhead paid for the netgraph-based implementation as compared to a optimally coded IP-in-IP tunnel (using gif?). Of course, the netgraph implementation is a huge win over running the packets up into user mode and doing a context switch. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 12:26:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1B537B424 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:26:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19565; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:26:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010405132320.00c146a0@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:26:13 -0600 To: "Louis A. Mamakos" From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE Cc: Wes Peters , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200104051916.f35JG5n54176@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> <200104051738.f35Hcsn53390@whizzo.transsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 01:16 PM 4/5/2001, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: >> I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was >> terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte >> IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology >> be made on simply the number of bytes on the wire; there are other >> things to consider as well. The biggest problem, in my case, is whether the technology WORKS. I've been trying PPPoE between two boxes running 4.3-RC2 for several days now, and it either hasn't connected or has caused kernel panics every time. I suspect that the problem is in the "Netgraph" code because of the error messages I'm seeing. Until I can get PPPoE working, I'll have to assign unregistered addresses to the machines at the ends of the tunnel and do NAT. The machines behind the router at the far end of the tunnel will be "NATted" twice.... Slow, but I've got to get the link up. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 12:52:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from freesbee.wheel.dk (freesbee.wheel.dk [193.162.159.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FE937B440; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:52:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jesper@skriver.dk) Received: by freesbee.wheel.dk (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 346A15D5E; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:52:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:52:11 +0200 From: Jesper Skriver To: Matthew Rezny Cc: "net@freebsd.org" , "stable@freebsd.org" , "isp@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Intel Gigabit NIC problem Message-ID: <20010405215211.B80900@skriver.dk> References: <200104040849.DAA21587@mrelay.cc.umr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104040849.DAA21587@mrelay.cc.umr.edu>; from mrezny@umr.edu on Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 02:49:22AM -0500 X-PGP-Fingerprint: 6B88 9CE8 66E9 E631 C9C5 5EB4 22AB F0EC F956 1C31 X-PGP-Public-Key: http://freesbee.wheel.dk/~jesper/gpgkey.pub Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 02:49:22AM -0500, Matthew Rezny wrote: > Does anyone have any idea what's going on, if there's any hope of fixing this, and what the solution would be? Thanks. Try http://www.flugsvamp.com/~jlemon/fbsd/drivers/Intel_Gigabit/ /Jesper -- Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456 Work: Network manager @ AS3292 (Tele Danmark DataNetworks) Private: FreeBSD committer @ AS2109 (A much smaller network ;-) One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them, One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 14:39:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lunatic.oneinsane.net (lunatic.oneinsane.net [66.42.61.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479F037B440 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from insane@lunatic.oneinsane.net) Received: by lunatic.oneinsane.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3E4A41555D; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:45:18 -0700 From: Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson To: netsaint-users@lists.sourceforge, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Solaris Assistance.... Please Message-ID: <20010405114518.A52335@lunatic.oneinsane.net> Reply-To: Ron Rosson Mail-Followup-To: netsaint-users@lists.sourceforge, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD lunatic.oneinsane.net 4.2-STABLE X-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (93% of Full) X-Opinion: What you read here is my IMHO X-WWW: http://www.oneinsane.net X-GPG-FINGERPRINT: 3F11 DB43 F080 C037 96F0 F8D3 5BD2 652B 171C 86DB X-Uptime: 11:42AM up 16 days, 16:10, 3 users, load averages: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I can compile netsaint and its plugins and everything works fine.. But when I go and try and compile apache 1.3.19 on my solaris 8 box with mod_auth_db support It fails. I know this is kinda off topic but I was hoping to find a Solaris admin that can help me. Here is a that shows what I have tried. http://www.sunhelp.org/pipermail/rescue/2001-April/013751.html TIA -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ron Rosson ... and a UNIX user said ... The InSaNe One rm -rf * insane@oneinsane.net and all was /dev/null and *void() ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Where do you think you're going today? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 14:54:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from smtp016.mail.yahoo.com (smtp016.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.113]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E746637B43F for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:54:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsdq@yahoo.com) Received: from h2.impactidealsolutions.com (HELO support10) (216.98.200.91) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2001 21:54:30 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:56:41 -0600 X-Priority: 3 From: Peter X-Mailer: Mail Warrior To: insane@lunatic.oneinsane.net, "Ron Rosson" Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re:Solaris Assistance.... Please Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Mailer-Version: v3.57 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org There are two good mailling lists that I know you can find people to help you: www.sunmanagers.org and unix-wiz,@ -- unix-wiz@listserv.nodak.edu [forgot the website for this, but you can find it easily i'm guessing.] On 04/05/2001 12:45:18 PM, Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson is quoted as saying: . . . .|I can compile netsaint and its plugins and everything works fine.. But . . . .|when I go and try and compile apache 1.3.19 on my solaris 8 box with . . . .|mod_auth_db support It fails. . . . .| . . . .|I know this is kinda off topic but I was hoping to find a Solaris admin . . . .|that can help me. Here is a that shows what I have tried. . . . .| . . . .| . . . .|http://www.sunhelp.org/pipermail/rescue/2001-April/013751.html . . . .| . . . .|TIA . . . .|-- . . . .|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . . . .|Ron Rosson ... and a UNIX user said ... . . . .|The InSaNe One rm -rf * . . . .|insane@oneinsane.net and all was /dev/null and *void() . . . .|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . . . .| Where do you think you're going today? . . . .| . . . .|To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org . . . .|with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message www.nul.cjb.net www.FreeBSD.org _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 15: 1:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5A337B446 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:01:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21305; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:01:36 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010405155642.00e5fc30@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:01:32 -0600 To: "Louis A. Mamakos" , Wes Peters From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200104051738.f35Hcsn53390@whizzo.transsys.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010330201802.00dc8f00@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20010401141552.0452a6c0@localhost> <3ACBF0B6.52B99863@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 11:38 AM 4/5/2001, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: >I've never thought that the 4 bytes of overhead per PPPoE frame was >terribly inefficient, compared to, say, IP-in-IP with another 20 byte >IP header. But I'm certainly not arguing that a choice of technology >be made on simply the number of bytes on the wire; there are other >things to consider as well. For this sort of application (tunneling), PPPoE is a win in most ways. It's got low overhead, isn't hard to administer, is reasonably secure, and doesn't require awkward architectural decisions (e.g. superimposing a subnet with reserved addresses upon your current LAN to do PPP over UDP or TCP). I just wish it would work! I may be able to help hunt down the problem myself, but need to get the link up first. THEN I can roll up my sleeves and start analyzing C code. (I don't much like C, but I can use it if I have to.) --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 16:39: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lunatic.oneinsane.net (lunatic.oneinsane.net [66.42.61.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5D237B43F for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:39:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from insane@lunatic.oneinsane.net) Received: by lunatic.oneinsane.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A2F601553F; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:38:59 -0700 From: Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Solaris Assistance.... Please Message-ID: <20010405163859.B57774@lunatic.oneinsane.net> Reply-To: Ron Rosson Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20010405114518.A52335@lunatic.oneinsane.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010405114518.A52335@lunatic.oneinsane.net>; from insane@lunatic.oneinsane.net on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:45:18AM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD lunatic.oneinsane.net 4.2-STABLE X-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (94% of Full) X-Opinion: What you read here is my IMHO X-WWW: http://www.oneinsane.net X-GPG-FINGERPRINT: 3F11 DB43 F080 C037 96F0 F8D3 5BD2 652B 171C 86DB X-Uptime: 4:38PM up 16 days, 21:06, 3 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.04, 0.00 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Sorry for this post my alias for netsaint had a comma (,net) in it.. I apologize for this Ron 'The InSaNe One' Rosson (insane@lunatic.oneinsane.net) wrote: > I can compile netsaint and its plugins and everything works fine.. But > when I go and try and compile apache 1.3.19 on my solaris 8 box with > mod_auth_db support It fails. > > I know this is kinda off topic but I was hoping to find a Solaris admin > that can help me. Here is a that shows what I have tried. > > > http://www.sunhelp.org/pipermail/rescue/2001-April/013751.html > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ron Rosson ... and a UNIX user said ... The InSaNe One rm -rf * insane@oneinsane.net and all was /dev/null and *void() ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better living through denial To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 16:48:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from technokratis.com (modemcable092.3-201-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.3.92]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E086637B43F; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:47:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmilekic@technokratis.com) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by technokratis.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f35Nmk523032; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:48:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bmilekic) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:48:46 -0400 From: Bosko Milekic To: Archie Cobbs Cc: Archie Cobbs , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf leak? fxp? Message-ID: <20010405194846.A22964@technokratis.com> References: <200103312350.f2VNon305299@bubba.packetdesign.com> <200104051718.f35HIcF73652@arch20m.dellroad.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104051718.f35HIcF73652@arch20m.dellroad.org>; from archie@dellroad.org on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:18:38AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:18:38AM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote: > Archie Cobbs writes: > > I have this machine that starts running out of mbufs every few days > > ("looutput: mbuf allocation failed") and then crashes, and was wondering > > if anyone else has seen similar behavior... > > > > For example... > > > > Yesterday... > > $ netstat -m > > 461/624/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > > 459 mbufs allocated to data > > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > > 434/490/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > > 1136 Kbytes allocated to network (36% of mb_map in use) > > 0 requests for memory denied > > 0 requests for memory delayed > > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > > > Today... > > $ netstat -m > > 947/1072/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > > 945 mbufs allocated to data > > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > > 920/946/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > > 2160 Kbytes allocated to network (70% of mb_map in use) > > 0 requests for memory denied > > 0 requests for memory delayed > > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > > > It appears that something is slowly eating up mbuf clusters. > > The machine is on a network with continuous but very low volume > > traffic, including some random multicast, NTP, etc. The machine > > itself is doing hardly anything at all. > > Well, my current guess is that this is simply an NMBCLUSTERS problem. > I increased NMBCLUSTERS to 8192 and it hasn't happened again yet. I kind of doubt that, judging simply from the netstat -m outputs you have posted above. In niether one is the number of clusters allocated meeting the maximum number of allocatable clusters. If it were the case, you would likely see some numbers for "requests for memory denied" and/or "requests for memory delayed." In any case, increasing NMBCLUSTERS to the number you mention is not a bad idea. > This machine has 5 ethernet interfaces, which must be probably more > than the default NMBCLUSTERS can handle. > > I wonder if we should increase the default NMBCLUSTERS, or document > somewhere that > 4 interfaces requires doing so? Well, the way it should be done is that `maxusers' should be increased, if anything. `maxusers' automatically tunes NMBCLUSTERS and NMBUFS accordingly. Chances are, if you are explicitly declaring `NMBCLUSTERS ' in your kernel configuration file, that you are actually lowering the number of clusters/mbufs that would otherwise be allowed with your given `maxusers' value (unless you have an unreasonably low maxusers). > Thanks for all the suggestions... > > -Archie > > __________________________________________________________________________ > Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com Regards, -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 17: 2:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from web9602.mail.yahoo.com (web9602.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.129.181]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2644E37B505 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from virtual_olympus@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20010406000239.43749.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [24.164.241.21] by web9602.mail.yahoo.com; Thu, 05 Apr 2001 17:02:39 PDT Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Gavin Subject: Multi-provider load balancing To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi all, I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DSL) and I need to load-balance the connection between them. I don't want to do BGP, and would prefer something that is marginally easy to maintain. I don't care about balancing based on load, simple round-robin style balancing would be fine. Here's a "picture": Internal Network (192.168.x.x) | v FreeBSD 4.2-RC firewall | | V V cable DSL Each external side is currently DHCP, but could be static if necessary. What I need is when a request goes out through the firewall for the machine to basically "choose a side". Then once the connection is established it could stay on that pipe, or flip back and forth (whichever is easier). Here's what I've tried: 1. ipfw + 2xnatd, doesn't seem to work, since ipfw rules can't randomly choose on of two rules (AFAIK) 2. ipnat + ipfilter: load-balancing rdr rules don't seem to want to load-balance prior to mapping, and map rules don't accept multiple destination choices. 3. Combinations of ipnat/natd + ipfilter/ipfw: I don't even know if this is possible, but I tried it anyway. Couldn't get anything to happen, not even standard single-mapping nat. Conceptually this is a very easy task. Connection comes in, we choose an exit path randomly (or an existing one if it's in the table already) and do the NAT and forget about it. The return packet handles itself through the normal NAT mechanisms. Has anyone done this? I don't have the skills nor time to actually do any of the coding on this myself. I've looked through the mailing list repositories and there are tons of questions, but no answers. I've looked through the ipf mailing lists, and again, lots of questions, but no answers... I'm at a loss. Is this just not possible? Am I going to be forced to purchase an off-the-shelf hardware product to do this? Thanks much, Ben Gavin ben@virtual-olympus.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 17:38: 0 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C1C37B42C; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:37:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (cdillon@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA55840; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:37:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:37:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Dillon To: Archie Cobbs Cc: Archie Cobbs , , Subject: Re: mbuf leak? fxp? In-Reply-To: <200104051718.f35HIcF73652@arch20m.dellroad.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Archie Cobbs wrote: > Archie Cobbs writes: > > I have this machine that starts running out of mbufs every few days > > ("looutput: mbuf allocation failed") and then crashes, and was wondering > > if anyone else has seen similar behavior... > > > > For example... > > > > Yesterday... > > $ netstat -m > > 461/624/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > > 459 mbufs allocated to data > > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > > 434/490/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > > 1136 Kbytes allocated to network (36% of mb_map in use) > > 0 requests for memory denied > > 0 requests for memory delayed > > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > > > Today... > > $ netstat -m > > 947/1072/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > > 945 mbufs allocated to data > > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > > 920/946/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > > 2160 Kbytes allocated to network (70% of mb_map in use) > > 0 requests for memory denied > > 0 requests for memory delayed > > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > > > It appears that something is slowly eating up mbuf clusters. > > The machine is on a network with continuous but very low volume > > traffic, including some random multicast, NTP, etc. The machine > > itself is doing hardly anything at all. > > Well, my current guess is that this is simply an NMBCLUSTERS problem. > I increased NMBCLUSTERS to 8192 and it hasn't happened again yet. > > This machine has 5 ethernet interfaces, which must be probably more > than the default NMBCLUSTERS can handle. Just a datapoint... I'm running a 4.3-BETA box with 8 fxp interfaces all on 100Mbit networks (several heavily trafficed, others spurious) and MAXUSERS set to 128, which gives me 2560 mbuf clusters: 565/2784/10240 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): 537 mbufs allocated to data 28 mbufs allocated to packet headers 524/2038/2560 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) 4772 Kbytes allocated to network (62% of mb_map in use) 0 requests for memory denied 0 requests for memory delayed 0 calls to protocol drain routines Could probably use a few more mbuf clusters, since its getting close, but read on... This box has been up for 22 days (been up for many moons before, but I wanted to test 4.3-BETA on it... yeah, its an "old" BETA already), and does LOTS of stuff in addition to routing across the 8 fxp interfaces, including ipfw with over 60 static rules and many hundreds of dynamic rules, just a little bit of NAT using natd, arpwatch and snort on about five of the interfaces, and Squid as a HTTP proxy with about 30GB of cache doing about 30000 requests/hour on average (handles about 60000 requests during the peak hour -- lunchtime). It still has plenty of power left over to run a distrubuted.net personal proxy and chew on lots of RC5 keys as well (I love FreeBSD). :-) Its doing pretty much the gamut of network related abuse you could do to a box -- routing on lots of interfaces, bpfilter (two per interface in most cases), ipfw, NAT, a fair amount of incoming and outgoing connections -- except I'm not doing anything Netgraph related (assuming you might be, being one who wrote it). Maybe its related to that? -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet. For IA32 and Alpha architectures. IA64, PPC, and ARM under development. http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 19:43:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cody.jharris.com (cody.jharris.com [205.238.128.83]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C0937B505 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:43:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nick@rogness.net) Received: from localhost (nick@localhost) by cody.jharris.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f363lUM14161; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:47:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nick@rogness.net) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:47:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Nick Rogness X-Sender: nick@cody.jharris.com To: Benjamin Gavin Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Multi-provider load balancing In-Reply-To: <20010406000239.43749.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Benjamin Gavin wrote: > Hi all, > I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DSL) and I need > to load-balance the connection between them. I don't want to do BGP, and > would prefer something that is marginally easy to maintain. I don't care > about balancing based on load, simple round-robin style balancing would be > fine. Here's a "picture": > > Internal Network (192.168.x.x) > | > v > FreeBSD 4.2-RC firewall > | | > V V > cable DSL > > Each external side is currently DHCP, but could be static if necessary. > What I need is when a request goes out through the firewall for the > machine to basically "choose a side". Then once the connection is > established it could stay on that pipe, or flip back and forth (whichever > is easier). > > Here's what I've tried: > > 1. ipfw + 2xnatd, doesn't seem to work, since ipfw rules can't randomly > choose on of two rules (AFAIK) Check out the probability stuff in ipfw. There has been a battle over this for a while. Many people say that you MUST run a routing daemon (ie BGP) to do this. Don;t know about ipfilter. Nick Rogness - Keep on Routing in a Free World... "FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 19:47:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from speedracer.speedtoys.com (speedracer.speedtoys.com [63.196.210.179]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622DA37B422 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:47:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gemohler@speedracer.speedtoys.com) Received: from localhost (gemohler@localhost) by speedracer.speedtoys.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f362mo214974; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:48:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gemohler@speedracer.speedtoys.com) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:48:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Geoff Mohler X-Sender: gemohler@speedracer.speedtoys.com To: Nick Rogness Cc: Benjamin Gavin , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Multi-provider load balancing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org You need a proper routing protocol to prevent asynchronous routing..badbadbadbad. *heh* Will routed let me run confederations too? On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Nick Rogness wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Benjamin Gavin wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DSL) and I need > > to load-balance the connection between them. I don't want to do BGP, and > > would prefer something that is marginally easy to maintain. I don't care > > about balancing based on load, simple round-robin style balancing would be > > fine. Here's a "picture": > > > > Internal Network (192.168.x.x) > > | > > v > > FreeBSD 4.2-RC firewall > > | | > > V V > > cable DSL > > > > Each external side is currently DHCP, but could be static if necessary. > > What I need is when a request goes out through the firewall for the > > machine to basically "choose a side". Then once the connection is > > established it could stay on that pipe, or flip back and forth (whichever > > is easier). > > > > Here's what I've tried: > > > > 1. ipfw + 2xnatd, doesn't seem to work, since ipfw rules can't randomly > > choose on of two rules (AFAIK) > > Check out the probability stuff in ipfw. There has been a battle > over this for a while. Many people say that you MUST run a > routing daemon (ie BGP) to do this. Don;t know about ipfilter. > > > Nick Rogness > - Keep on Routing in a Free World... > "FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!" > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > --- Geoff Mohler California, USA I own a lotta cars. But in the best interests of not having to continualy edit this file to meet the needs of eight specific lists, and no to awaken the idiots within others who think -thier- cars are the best and Im a fool for having anything -but- thier kind of car..I have not listed them. If Im on the list you are reading..I have one. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Thu Apr 5 21:15:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.dellroad.org (adsl-63-194-81-26.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.194.81.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A275A37B507; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:15:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie@dellroad.org) Received: from arch20m.dellroad.org (arch20m.dellroad.org [10.1.1.20]) by InterJet.dellroad.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA09479; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from archie@localhost) by arch20m.dellroad.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f3644Fa75013; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:04:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <200104060404.f3644Fa75013@arch20m.dellroad.org> Subject: Re: mbuf leak? fxp? In-Reply-To: <20010405194846.A22964@technokratis.com> "from Bosko Milekic at Apr 5, 2001 07:48:46 pm" To: Bosko Milekic Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL82 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Bosko Milekic writes: > NMBUFS accordingly. Chances are, if you are explicitly declaring > `NMBCLUSTERS ' in your kernel configuration file, that you are > actually lowering the number of clusters/mbufs that would otherwise be > allowed with your given `maxusers' value (unless you have an unreasonably > low maxusers). Mmm.. I don't understand that.. can you explain? -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Apr 6 0:33:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from germes.levi.spb.ru (ip65.levi.spb.ru [212.119.175.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D7037B424; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:33:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dms@wplus.net) Received: from wplus.net (IDENT:dms@pike.levi.spb.ru [10.246.8.43]) by germes.levi.spb.ru (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f367Va712312; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:31:45 +0400 Message-ID: <3ACD70D8.3F14CD6@wplus.net> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:31:36 +0400 From: Dmitry Samersoff Organization: LeviSoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bosko Milekic Cc: Archie Cobbs , Archie Cobbs , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf leak? fxp? References: <200103312350.f2VNon305299@bubba.packetdesign.com> <200104051718.f35HIcF73652@arch20m.dellroad.org> <20010405194846.A22964@technokratis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Bosko Milekic wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:18:38AM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote: > > Archie Cobbs writes: > > > I have this machine that starts running out of mbufs every few days > > > ("looutput: mbuf allocation failed") and then crashes, and was wondering > > > if anyone else has seen similar behavior... > > > > > > For example... > > > > > > Yesterday... > > > $ netstat -m > > > 461/624/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > > > 459 mbufs allocated to data > > > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > > > 434/490/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > > > 1136 Kbytes allocated to network (36% of mb_map in use) > > > 0 requests for memory denied > > > 0 requests for memory delayed > > > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > > > > > Today... > > > $ netstat -m > > > 947/1072/4096 mbufs in use (current/peak/max): > > > 945 mbufs allocated to data > > > 2 mbufs allocated to packet headers > > > 920/946/1024 mbuf clusters in use (current/peak/max) > > > 2160 Kbytes allocated to network (70% of mb_map in use) > > > 0 requests for memory denied > > > 0 requests for memory delayed > > > 0 calls to protocol drain routines > > > > > > It appears that something is slowly eating up mbuf clusters. > > > The machine is on a network with continuous but very low volume > > > traffic, including some random multicast, NTP, etc. The machine > > > itself is doing hardly anything at all. > > > > Well, my current guess is that this is simply an NMBCLUSTERS problem. > > I increased NMBCLUSTERS to 8192 and it hasn't happened again yet. > > I kind of doubt that, judging simply from the netstat -m outputs > you have posted above. In niether one is the number of clusters allocated > meeting the maximum number of allocatable clusters. If it were the case, you > would likely see some numbers for "requests for memory denied" and/or > "requests for memory delayed." > In any case, increasing NMBCLUSTERS to the number you mention is > not a bad idea. > > > This machine has 5 ethernet interfaces, which must be probably more > > than the default NMBCLUSTERS can handle. > > > > I wonder if we should increase the default NMBCLUSTERS, or document > > somewhere that > 4 interfaces requires doing so? > > Well, the way it should be done is that `maxusers' should be > increased, if anything. `maxusers' automatically tunes NMBCLUSTERS and > NMBUFS accordingly. Chances are, if you are explicitly declaring > `NMBCLUSTERS ' in your kernel configuration file, that you are > actually lowering the number of clusters/mbufs that would otherwise be > allowed with your given `maxusers' value (unless you have an unreasonably > low maxusers). I always increase NMBCLASTERS instead increasing MAXUSER if I only need more networks, because increasing maxuser slow down FreeBSD. I also have a number of problems with modern Intel ethernet cards, probably (but I'm not sure) FreeBSD 4.2 fxp driver not 100% compatible with the latest one. (Intel PRO/100+ Fast Ethernet Controller (82559) on Mother Board) -- Dmitry Samersoff, dms@wplus.net, ICQ:3161705 http://devnull.wplus.net * There will come soft rains ... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Apr 6 4: 2: 2 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCBB37B43E; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:01:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f36B1x123089; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:01:59 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: wpaul@freebsd.org Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: almost got wi working. Message-ID: <20010406040159.R17723@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I'm basically able to get the cards to work without locking up with the lastest version of the 5.x driver along with a hacked up 4.x driver by doing this: both> /usr/sbin/wicontrol -i wi0 -n "FreeBSD IBSS" both> /usr/sbin/wicontrol -i wi0 -p 1 both> /usr/sbin/wicontrol -i wi0 -c 1 both> /usr/sbin/wicontrol -i wi0 -f 10 both> /usr/sbin/wicontrol -i wi0 -t 3 router(pci)> /usr/sbin/wicontrol -i wi0 -s "router" router(pci)> /sbin/ifconfig wi0 inet 10.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 laptop(pcmcia)> /usr/sbin/wicontrol -i wi0 -s "router" laptop(pcmcia)> /sbin/ifconfig wi0 inet 10.0.0.5 netmask 0xff000000 The problem is that if I unload/reload a driver the card doesn't seem to want to xmit or something (sorry :) ), the way that I fix this is to ping the card from the host that didn't reset, that gets it working right away: /usr/local/etc # ping 10.0.0.5 PING 10.0.0.5 (10.0.0.5): 56 data bytes ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down ping: sendto: Host is down 64 bytes from 10.0.0.5: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=11680.270 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.5: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=5.407 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.5: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=4.730 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.5: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=5.394 ms 64 bytes from 10.0.0.5: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=5.364 ms I started pinging from 10.0.0.1 right before seeing the '5' pop up. I also noticed that: a) wi card doesn't show itself in the local arp table (arp -na doesn't list itself) b) there's no call to ifmedia_init() in the wi driver, but I don't think that matters. Any hints? The hacked up wi driver is here: http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/wi/ thanks, -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Apr 6 5:29:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from www3.mailru.com (www3.mailru.com [194.186.36.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6FC37B496 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 05:29:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mogikan@mailru.com) Received: by Pochtamt.Ru WebMail v1.9 id f36CV4L03314 for ; Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 16:31:04 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <200104061231.f36CV4L03314@www3.mailru.com> From: Vadim Kimlaychuk To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Free WebMail HotBOX.ru X-Proxy-IP: [194.226.0.60] X-Originating-IP: [192.168.177.12, unknown] Subject: Traffic shaper Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hello All. Have such a situation: - there is 256k/sec Internet link - there are 4 users to connect via it Question: Could I divide a channel on 4 users with 64k/sec - minimal speed on a user and ???k/sec - maximum (depending on chanell utilization) to achive maximum speed per user? Dummynet allows only to limit the upper speed, but this is not optimal when less than 4 users are active. Thanks. /Vadim/ mailto:mogikan@mailru.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Apr 6 5:32:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from lu.pine.nl (lu.pine.nl [213.156.0.240]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4388537B449 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 05:32:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@pine.nl) Received: by lu.pine.nl (Postfix, from userid 96) id 0DE6522B37; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:31:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from atro.pine.nl (atro.pine.nl [213.156.0.2]) by lu.pine.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D811E13B; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:31:15 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by atro.pine.nl (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f36CWJD02907; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:32:19 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 14:32:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: Mark Lastdrager To: Vadim Kimlaychuk Cc: Subject: Re: Traffic shaper In-Reply-To: <200104061231.f36CV4L03314@www3.mailru.com> Message-ID: X-Message-flag: Get a real mailreader X-NCC-RegID: nl.pine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1 (http://amavis.org/) Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At Fri, 6 Apr 2001, owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG wrote: > > Hello All. > Have such a situation: > - there is 256k/sec Internet link > - there are 4 users to connect via it > Question: Could I divide a channel on 4 users with >64k/sec - minimal speed on a user and ???k/sec - >maximum (depending on chanell utilization) to achive >maximum speed per user? > Dummynet allows only to limit the upper speed, but >this is not optimal when less than 4 users are active. Yes, use ALTQ: http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/kjc/programs.html There a stream can borrow bandwidth from parent streams. Mark Lastdrager -- Pine Internet BV :: tel. +31-70-3111010 :: fax. +31-70-3111011 PGP 92BB81D1 fingerprint 0059 7D7B C02B 38D2 A853 2785 8C87 3AF1 Today's excuse: CPU needs bearings repacked To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Apr 6 7:16: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from web9615.mail.yahoo.com (web9615.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.131.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1623A37B423 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from virtual_olympus@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20010406141558.44180.qmail@web9615.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.170.141.2] by web9615.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 06 Apr 2001 07:15:58 PDT Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 07:15:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Benjamin Gavin Subject: Re: Multi-provider load balancing To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Also, and perhaps I should be more clear: 1. I am load-balancing outbound connections from an internal (non-routable) network. 2. There are hardware solutions that do this. 3. There are Windows based programs that do this. I will look into that probability stuff for ipfw, thus far it looks promising. My only concern is that packets coming back in get redirected to the correct natd process, but I can probably control that by using a slightly modified ruleset. Also, the rest of the internet sees my outgoing connections as generating from two separate endpoints. I'm not trying to provide access to internal web sites, DNS, etc through these connections, so I fail to see how assymetric routing would have anything to do with this. I've also checked with a couple people who are addmittedly more versed in TCP/IP and routing and they seemed to think that it would be possible to set something up as I propose. I understand the purpose of BGP, but I just don't think it applies in my case. This is for a simple home network, and every home network in the world is hardly going to apply for an AS number if this type of thing is going to be widespread (nor can they afford to buy expensive hardware solutions). Thanks again, Ben --- Nick Rogness wrote: > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Benjamin Gavin wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I've got a problem. I have two providers (cable modem/DSL) and I > need > > to load-balance the connection between them. I don't want to do BGP, > and > > would prefer something that is marginally easy to maintain. I don't > care > > about balancing based on load, simple round-robin style balancing > would be > > fine. Here's a "picture": > > > > Internal Network (192.168.x.x) > > | > > v > > FreeBSD 4.2-RC firewall > > | | > > V V > > cable DSL > > > > Each external side is currently DHCP, but could be static if > necessary. > > What I need is when a request goes out through the firewall for the > > machine to basically "choose a side". Then once the connection is > > established it could stay on that pipe, or flip back and forth > (whichever > > is easier). > > > > Here's what I've tried: > > > > 1. ipfw + 2xnatd, doesn't seem to work, since ipfw rules can't > randomly > > choose on of two rules (AFAIK) > > Check out the probability stuff in ipfw. There has been a battle > over this for a while. Many people say that you MUST run a > routing daemon (ie BGP) to do this. Don;t know about ipfilter. > > > Nick Rogness > - Keep on Routing in a Free World... > "FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!" > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Apr 6 12: 1:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from InterJet.dellroad.org (adsl-63-194-81-26.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.194.81.26]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB2537B505 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:01:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie@dellroad.org) Received: from arch20m.dellroad.org (arch20m.dellroad.org [10.1.1.20]) by InterJet.dellroad.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA14036; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from archie@localhost) by arch20m.dellroad.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f36ImZt76964; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:48:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <200104061848.f36ImZt76964@arch20m.dellroad.org> Subject: Re: mbuf leak? fxp? In-Reply-To: <3ACD70D8.3F14CD6@wplus.net> "from Dmitry Samersoff at Apr 6, 2001 11:31:36 am" To: Dmitry Samersoff Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 11:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Bosko Milekic , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL82 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dmitry Samersoff writes: > I also have a number of problems with modern Intel ethernet cards, > probably (but I'm not sure) FreeBSD 4.2 fxp driver not 100% compatible > with the latest one. > > (Intel PRO/100+ Fast Ethernet Controller (82559) on Mother Board) What problems specifically? Thanks, -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Fri Apr 6 15: 7:50 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from technokratis.com (modemcable092.3-201-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.3.92]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908B037B422 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:07:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmilekic@technokratis.com) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by technokratis.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f36M9NA30333; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:09:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bmilekic) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 18:09:22 -0400 From: Bosko Milekic To: Archie Cobbs Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mbuf leak? fxp? Message-ID: <20010406180922.A30267@technokratis.com> References: <20010405194846.A22964@technokratis.com> <200104060404.f3644Fa75013@arch20m.dellroad.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104060404.f3644Fa75013@arch20m.dellroad.org>; from archie@dellroad.org on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:04:15PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 09:04:15PM -0700, Archie Cobbs wrote: > Bosko Milekic writes: > > NMBUFS accordingly. Chances are, if you are explicitly declaring > > `NMBCLUSTERS ' in your kernel configuration file, that you are > > actually lowering the number of clusters/mbufs that would otherwise be > > allowed with your given `maxusers' value (unless you have an unreasonably > > low maxusers). > > Mmm.. I don't understand that.. can you explain? Heh. I'm sorry for being so "obscure" about this. After re-reading it, I realize I should have probably just quoted the following: #ifndef NMBCLUSTERS #define NMBCLUSTERS (512 + MAXUSERS * 16) #endif TUNABLE_INT_DECL("kern.ipc.nmbclusters", NMBCLUSTERS, nmbclusters); TUNABLE_INT_DECL("kern.ipc.nmbufs", NMBCLUSTERS * 4, nmbufs); (from src/sys/kern/uipc_mbuf.c) So, for example, for MAXUSERS 256, NMBCLUSTERS is 4608, whereas I have seen people do things like this before: maxusers 256 options NMBCLUSTERS 4096 Thus actually reducing the address space allotted to clusters. > -Archie > > __________________________________________________________________________ > Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com Regards, -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 5:10:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cody.jharris.com (cody.jharris.com [205.238.128.83]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4104B37B422 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 05:10:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nick@rogness.net) Received: from localhost (nick@localhost) by cody.jharris.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f37DET422703 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:14:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from nick@rogness.net) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:14:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Nick Rogness X-Sender: nick@cody.jharris.com To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Multi-Destination gif tunnel Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Multi-Destination gif tunnel Anybody had any success at setting these things up? I have a couple of questions...maybe someone can answer: In gif(4) man: "With IFF_LINK0 interface flag, gif can be configured to implement multi-destination tunnel. With IFF_LINK0, it is able to configure egress point to IPv4 wildcard address (0.0.0.0) or IPv6 unspecified address (0::0)." Umm ok: # ifconfig gif0 link0 # gifconfig gif0 inet 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 "In this case, destination address for the outer IP header is determined based on the routing table setup." Ok, what about the inner header setup? And what about the outside destination ip? How do you configure that to go out gif0 ? With the -iface flag [tried it didn't work]. Talk to me Goose!! Nick Rogness - Keep on Routing in a Free World... "FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 7:19:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from info.iet.unipi.it (info.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.184]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35ABE37B42C for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 07:19:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from luigi@info.iet.unipi.it) Received: (from luigi@localhost) by info.iet.unipi.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA16384; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:18:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from luigi) From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <200104071418.QAA16384@info.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: Traffic shaper In-Reply-To: <200104061231.f36CV4L03314@www3.mailru.com> from Vadim Kimlaychuk at "Apr 6, 2001 04:31:04 pm" To: Vadim Kimlaychuk Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:18:09 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > > Hello All. > Have such a situation: > - there is 256k/sec Internet link > - there are 4 users to connect via it > Question: Could I divide a channel on 4 users with > 64k/sec - minimal speed on a user and ???k/sec - > maximum (depending on chanell utilization) to achive > maximum speed per user? > Dummynet allows only to limit the upper speed, but > this is not optimal when less than 4 users are active. the recent WF2Q support lets you do this also with dummynet. see the dummynet man page for details, and use the code in a recent -stable (post-feb.2001) which fixes some bugs in the previous versions cheers luigi > Thanks. > /Vadim/ mailto:mogikan@mailru.com > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 8:43:39 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.dada.it (mail4.dada.it [195.110.96.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AE0437B424 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:43:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ale@unixmania.net) Received: (qmail 29792 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2001 15:43:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO libero.sunshine.ale) (195.110.114.252) by mail.dada.it with SMTP; 7 Apr 2001 15:43:30 -0000 Received: by libero.sunshine.ale (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 243A75FE8; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:39:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:39:08 +0200 From: Alessandro de Manzano To: questions@freebsd.org Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: VPN ? Message-ID: <20010407173907.A65222@libero.sunshine.ale> Reply-To: Alessandro de Manzano Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.3-RC Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi! I've a couple of 4.2-stable machines on the Internet, both with static public IPs, so I would try to configure a VPN between them. Is there a tutorial / how-to / examples somewhere ? I guess I should use the /dev/tunX devices, but how ? Any hint is welcome! :-) Thanks a lot!! -- bye! Ale ale@unixmania.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 8:49:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from vivien.franken.de (vivien.franken.de [194.94.249.90]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E59737B423 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:49:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@vivien.franken.de) Received: by vivien.franken.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B9F02B9; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:50:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:50:02 +0200 From: Alexander Goller To: Alessandro de Manzano Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VPN ? Message-ID: <20010407175002.D4605@vivien.franken.de> References: <20010407173907.A65222@libero.sunshine.ale> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <20010407173907.A65222@libero.sunshine.ale>; from ale@unixmania.net on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:39:08PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:39:08PM +0200, Alessandro de Manzano wrote: > Hi! > > I've a couple of 4.2-stable machines on the Internet, both with static > public IPs, so I would try to configure a VPN between them. > > Is there a tutorial / how-to / examples somewhere ? > I guess I should use the /dev/tunX devices, but how ? If you're doing serious stuff you should really use the builtin IPSec that came with the Kame stack. man ipsec, man 8 setkey. Another possibility to use ipsec is pipsecd which might be enough for a quick start. I guess daemonnews, freebsddiary or some similar magazine also got some tutorial or step by step introduction to IPSec. bye, alex -- alexander goller alex@vivien.franken.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 8:52:57 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.dada.it (mail4.dada.it [195.110.96.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FEC237B424 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:52:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ale@unixmania.net) Received: (qmail 32704 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2001 15:52:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO libero.sunshine.ale) (195.110.114.252) by mail.dada.it with SMTP; 7 Apr 2001 15:52:48 -0000 Received: by libero.sunshine.ale (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 416B15FE8; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:52:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:52:45 +0200 From: Alessandro de Manzano To: Alexander Goller Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VPN ? Message-ID: <20010407175245.A65378@libero.sunshine.ale> Reply-To: Alessandro de Manzano References: <20010407173907.A65222@libero.sunshine.ale> <20010407175002.D4605@vivien.franken.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010407175002.D4605@vivien.franken.de>; from alex@vivien.franken.de on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:50:02PM +0200 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.3-RC Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:50:02PM +0200, Alexander Goller wrote: > > Is there a tutorial / how-to / examples somewhere ? > > I guess I should use the /dev/tunX devices, but how ? > > If you're doing serious stuff you should really use the builtin IPSec > that came with the Kame stack. man ipsec, man 8 setkey. well, I'm learing how to do VPNs but I think it's serious :-) > Another possibility to use ipsec is pipsecd which might be enough for > a quick start. does pipsecd use IPsec, as far as I can see here now (just found in the ports) ? > I guess daemonnews, freebsddiary or some similar magazine also got > some tutorial or step by step introduction to IPSec. Thanks, I'll check them out. tnx! -- bye! Ale ale@unixmania.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 8:56: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from vivien.franken.de (vivien.franken.de [194.94.249.90]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DEF37B423 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:56:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alex@vivien.franken.de) Received: by vivien.franken.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 13DEAB9; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:56:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:56:12 +0200 From: Alexander Goller To: Alessandro de Manzano Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VPN ? Message-ID: <20010407175612.E4605@vivien.franken.de> References: <20010407173907.A65222@libero.sunshine.ale> <20010407175002.D4605@vivien.franken.de> <20010407175245.A65378@libero.sunshine.ale> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <20010407175245.A65378@libero.sunshine.ale>; from ale@unixmania.net on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:52:45PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:52:45PM +0200, Alessandro de Manzano wrote: > does pipsecd use IPsec, as far as I can see here now (just found in the > ports) ? pipsecd is a userland implementation which is setup quite fast, it uses the tun device iirc. bye, alex -- alexander goller alex@vivien.franken.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 9:11: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mailhub.airlinksys.com (mailhub.airlinksys.com [216.70.12.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3C637B422 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:11:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sjohn@airlinksys.com) Received: from ns2.airlinksys.com (ns2.airlinksys.com [216.70.12.3]) by mailhub.airlinksys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE7353501 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:11:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ns2.airlinksys.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4EA7D5E0B; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:11:01 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:11:01 -0500 From: Scott Johnson To: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VPN ? Message-ID: <20010407111101.A1056@ns2.airlinksys.com> Reply-To: Scott Johnson Mail-Followup-To: net@freebsd.org References: <20010407173907.A65222@libero.sunshine.ale> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010407173907.A65222@libero.sunshine.ale>; from ale@unixmania.net on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:39:08PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Quoth Alessandro de Manzano on Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 05:39:08PM +0200: > Hi! > > I've a couple of 4.2-stable machines on the Internet, both with static > public IPs, so I would try to configure a VPN between them. > > Is there a tutorial / how-to / examples somewhere ? > I guess I should use the /dev/tunX devices, but how ? > > Any hint is welcome! :-) > > Thanks a lot!! If both boxes have public IP addresses, there's no need for a tunnel. Just use IPSEC transport mode. See http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/ipsec.html http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/network/ipsec/ http://www.daemonnews.org/200101/ipsec-howto.html If you want to connect two networks with public IP addresses, use tunnel mode as described in the above. If the networks are behind NAT, try this approach using a gif tunnel: http://freebsd.cg.nu/ipsec.html I've also used vtun to create a tunnel over UDP through my Linksys BEFSR41 at home, which is pretty much the same but uses vtund and a tun device. In your situation, you shouldn't have to do that. P.S.: Google is your friend. -- Scott Johnson System/Network Administrator Airlink Systems To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 9:44:41 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mailhub.airlinksys.com (mailhub.airlinksys.com [216.70.12.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCCE37B422 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:44:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sjohn@airlinksys.com) Received: from ns2.airlinksys.com (ns2.airlinksys.com [216.70.12.3]) by mailhub.airlinksys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B319A53501 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:44:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ns2.airlinksys.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3FDB25E0B; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:44:37 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:44:37 -0500 From: Scott Johnson To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: arp timeout Message-ID: <20010407114436.B1056@ns2.airlinksys.com> Reply-To: Scott Johnson Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Is the timeout on the arp cache restarted on each communication with the device? Or is the cache refreshed every timeout interval whether there has been activity at all? Also: I'm using the sysctl method that arp.c uses to check the cache, but I don't like allocating a big buffer and running through all the entries to find the one I'm looking for. It appears that SIOCGARP is not supported. I would use the routing socket approach (I'm assuming it works the way Stevens describes in UNP ch. 17), but that requires root privs. Am I stuck with sysctl if I want to check the cache as a user? -- Scott Johnson System/Network Administrator Airlink Systems To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 10:16:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from oddjob.adhesivemedia.com (oddjob.adhesivemedia.com [207.202.159.77]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636B637B422; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:16:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from philip@adhesivemedia.com) Received: from localhost (philip@localhost) by oddjob.adhesivemedia.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f37HGRT44231; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:16:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from philip@adhesivemedia.com) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:16:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Philip Hallstrom To: Alessandro de Manzano Cc: , Subject: Re: VPN ? In-Reply-To: <20010407173907.A65222@libero.sunshine.ale> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org http://stuff.adhesivemedia.com/freebsd has howto's for pipsecd and vtund. On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Alessandro de Manzano wrote: > Hi! > > I've a couple of 4.2-stable machines on the Internet, both with static > public IPs, so I would try to configure a VPN between them. > > Is there a tutorial / how-to / examples somewhere ? > I guess I should use the /dev/tunX devices, but how ? > > Any hint is welcome! :-) > > Thanks a lot!! > > > -- > > bye! > > Ale > > ale@unixmania.net > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-net Sat Apr 7 22:11:12 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from rgmail.regenstrief.org (rgmail.regenstrief.org [134.68.31.197]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC05937B422; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:11:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gunther@aurora.regenstrief.org) Received: from aurora.regenstrief.org (aurora.rg.iupui.edu [134.68.31.122]) by rgmail.regenstrief.org (8.11.0/8.8.7) with ESMTP id f385CeA23539; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 00:12:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3ACFF2D6.13219EAB@aurora.regenstrief.org> Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 05:10:46 +0000 From: Gunther Schadow Organization: Regenstrief Institute for Health Care X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: snap-users@kame.net Cc: users@ipv6.org, net@freebsd.org, ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Consolidating KAME SPD rules and IPFW / IPfilter. References: <3ACD6099.471BE93A@aurora.regenstrief.org> <20010406201920R.sakane@ydc.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, Itojun says this has been discussed before and that the solution is almost ready to go. I can take some time of my dayjob work to help this, which is why I want to know exactly the status and direction. This is my proposal, not knowing what folks at Kame and FreeBSD have been cooking: > [VPN application] In practice I will almost always end up combining > IPFW and IPsec in my security solutions with *BSD/kame. And I find > it kind of odd that IPFW and IPsec shouldn't work together better > than they do now. [...] > > I think that the separate IPsec policy management in setkey is > somewhat superflous. It could all very well be handled by IPFW > rules such as something like this: > > ipfw add 1000 divert ipsecd 1010 all from to out > > ipfw add 1001 divert ipsecd 1020 50 from to in > ipfw add 1001 divert ipsecd 1022 51 from to in > > this means, an IPsec daemon (ipsecd) would listen on a divert > socket (like natd does) and do its thing on the packets. I > understand that the SPD contains more data, and that's what > my numbers 1010, 1020, 1022 would refer to (an SPD identifier). > The SPD would now simply contain the parameters of the IPsec mode > (ESP vs. AH, transport vs. tunnel, tunnel endpoints, etc.) but not > the matching rule stuff. I think that ipfw does a pretty good job > with the matching rules, so why doing the same thing in two places? Itojun wrote in response: > this is the tricky part. IPsec policy and ipfw/ipfilter/divert/ > whatever is doing almost the same thing, and conflict in very difficult > ways. I'm trying to improve NetBSD situation, as shown in > http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/network/ipsec/#ipf-interaction. > NetBSD 1.5.1/1.6 should be a lot better than before. > > for FreeBSD, there was a discussion on one of FreeBSD mailing lists. > not sure the particular change got committed to the FreeBSD tree or not. > > the ultimate solution would be to integrate packet filter and ipsec > policy engine into one, there's an ongoing effort on that direction. And obviously I fully agree. But the problem for the Kame folks seems to be that the *BSD are disparate and moving targets for consolidating packet filtering and IPsec policy management. Shoichi Sakane wrote: > [...] I am not sure all *bsd have same method to hook a ip packet. > Do all *bsd have ipfw in this case ? I know IPFilter is implemented > to FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD. But it cannot handle a ipv6 packet > accurately. > > I like to use a general useful pakcet filter function in order to process > IPSec if it is implemented to all *bsd. And he also mentions: > First, KAME IPSec stack is not friendly with NAT. We don't live in NAT > environment, so we haven't ever considered about being with NAT. > If you want to use NAT with IPSec, you have to consider the changing IP > address in IP packet and the processing order. To which I can only say that in IPv4 world and VPN, NAT is almost mandatory. For me, using NAT allows me to set up VPN specific routing for my special project within a corporate network without bothering the network administrator with using FreeBSD instead of their Cisco stuff for routing. FreeBSD/KAME needs NAT for allowing it to being used in production environments today. NAT comes with IPFW, which is where the circle closes. I would prefer combining IPsec policy with IPFW rather than IPfilter. But I may not have the full scoop about IPfilter. What's FreeBSD's direction? I would also rather see one way, IPFW or IPfilter being mainstream on FreeBSD and NetBSD (for very selfish reasons, i.e., once I need to deploy my stuff on a StrongARM board, I must switch to NetBSD.) I like IPFW a lot and my understanding is that it can do more than IPfilter, but I may be wrong? I am tempted to "outsource" the IPsec functionality away from the kernel using a demon on a divert socket, just like NATD. This would be more modular and keeps the kernel from panicing because of bugs in IPsec -- I did have embarrassing kernel crashes, just when I bragged about FreeBSD running rock solid :0(. I have read about pipsecd, but would like to stand by the excellent work of the Kame people. regards -Gunther -- Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D. gschadow@regenstrief.org Medical Information Scientist Regenstrief Institute for Health Care Adjunct Assistent Professor Indiana University School of Medicine tel:1(317)630-7960 http://aurora.regenstrief.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message