From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 7 10:25:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42D016A420; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:25:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.97]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB5543D49; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:25:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k27AP6kZ077290; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:25:06 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su) Received: (from yar@localhost) by comp.chem.msu.su (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id k27AP5TD077285; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:25:05 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from yar) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:25:05 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20060307102505.GA77106@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <60ffc71f0603060759r34f02878ha38a7a275dc0aa6c@mail.gmail.com> <20060306230528.GC61210@comp.chem.msu.su> <60ffc71f0603061531g3c6995d2s54704022fe7ba1f@mail.gmail.com> <20060306235024.GA65709@comp.chem.msu.su> <60ffc71f0603061637j27ebe520r329e88bbc3141746@mail.gmail.com> <20060307012605.C79905@fledge.watson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060307012605.C79905@fledge.watson.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, Nik Subject: Re: multicast group memberships exceeded in FreeBSD 6-Prerelease X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 10:25:08 -0000 On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 01:26:28AM +0000, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Nik wrote: > > >Thanks bro. Really appreciate that, I'll give a try after this then I'll > >let you know the result. > > We might want to consider increasing the maximum to a larger number, given > that 20 does sound a bit small these days. I'm afraid that with folks running hundreds of vlan interfaces per host out there, any reasonable default would be too small to fit every case. When I faced the problem, I took a quick look at if it would be possible to make it a sysctl, but it seemed to me not so easy, so I just bumped the define that time becuase had to make my routers work ASAP. The task of making it a sysctl may need a re-examination... -- Yar