From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Dec 7 9: 5:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from smtp015.mail.yahoo.com (smtp015.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.59]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9868237B417 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:05:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO warhawk) (202.1.200.56) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2001 17:05:05 -0000 From: "Haikal Saadh" To: "'Jeff Lynch'" , "'Kal Torak'" Cc: "'FreeBSD Stable'" , "'FreeBSD ISP'" Subject: RE: Whats with this -> sendto: No buffer space available Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 22:04:54 +0500 Message-ID: <000601c17f41$4f9aa060$38c801ca@warhawk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Kal Torak wrote: > > > Jonathan Hanna wrote: > > > > > > > > No PPP involved with me, and I think with many others. I > agree that > > > the "no affect" above does look like ordinary buffer exhaustion, > > > though I also have a working network except for one interface (or > > > maybe divert socket?). > > > > Hmmm, perhaps this is related to NAT then??? > > We see this without using NAT between a 3.x and 4.x box > sitting on fastether feeds at two separate colo spaces. > Latency is pretty consistent between 30-40ms. We've turned > off encryption/compression/stat without help, but switching > to tcp seems to help. But we are moving traffic off the vtun > as quickly as possible, so that could also be a factor to the > noticable increase in stability. > Sorry if I'm a bit late to this party, but I've had this come up once, and it was on a dial up link to a box (ppp link, connected to another ordinary modem at 33.6k), and I was concurrently running nmap and saint, and needless to say it happened about halfway through the scans. IPFirewall was running, but I had it set to allow any from any to any. NAT was not running, and had never been running on that box either. And no I'm not a script kiddie, I was asked to see if that box had any major holes open :). _________________________________________________________ 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-stable" in the body of the message