On 02/04/17 07:43, Chagin Dmitry wrote:
chd.heemeyer.club dumped core - see /var/crash/vmcore.8
Sat Feb 4 09:01:35 MSK 2017
FreeBSD chd.heemeyer.club 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #237
r313172+c19dc6ff09(lemul): Fri Feb 3 22:38:44 MSK 2017
r...@chd.heemeyer.club:/home/rootobj/home/
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 03:43:05PM -0800, Roger Marquis wrote:
> Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> >> It seems to be flapping between the virtual mac of my bridge interface
> >> and the actual mac adress on the physical interface. This was not the
> >> case when i ran FreeBSD 10.2. Is there some setting
Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>> It seems to be flapping between the virtual mac of my bridge interface
>> and the actual mac adress on the physical interface. This was not the
>> case when i ran FreeBSD 10.2. Is there some settings I need to do?
While the documentation says you should assign an IP to
On 2016-02-03 12:36, Chris H wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:13:21 -0500 Allan Jude wrote
>
>> On 2016-02-03 10:32, Chris H wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:55:47 -0800 "Chris H" wrote
>>>
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:31:43 +0100 Peter Ankerstål wrote
> Hi!
>
> I recently upgrade
Sorry, must've missed that...
:(
-a
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:37:30 -0800 Adrian Chadd wrote
> Hi,
>
> Are these interfaces in a bridge group?
No.
> Why are you putting the IP on
> the physical interface, instead of the bridgeX interface?
Which is why the IP's are set per interface. :)
I stated that in at *least* one of my replies. :)
Hi,
Are these interfaces in a bridge group? Why are you putting the IP on
the physical interface, instead of the bridgeX interface?
-a
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscrib
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:13:21 -0500 Allan Jude wrote
> On 2016-02-03 10:32, Chris H wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:55:47 -0800 "Chris H" wrote
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:31:43 +0100 Peter Ankerstål wrote
> >>
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> I recently upgraded my system to 11-CURRENT (FreeBSD 11.0-
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:55:47 -0800 "Chris H" wrote
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:31:43 +0100 Peter Ankerstål wrote
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I recently upgraded my system to 11-CURRENT (FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0
> > r295087: Sun Jan 31 10:21:31 CET 2016) and after that all of my other
> > devices in the net
On 2016-02-03 10:32, Chris H wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:55:47 -0800 "Chris H" wrote
>
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:31:43 +0100 Peter Ankerstål wrote
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I recently upgraded my system to 11-CURRENT (FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0
>>> r295087: Sun Jan 31 10:21:31 CET 2016) and after that
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:55:47 -0800 "Chris H" wrote
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:31:43 +0100 Peter Ankerstål wrote
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I recently upgraded my system to 11-CURRENT (FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0
> > r295087: Sun Jan 31 10:21:31 CET 2016) and after that all of my other
> > devices in the net
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:31:43 +0100 Peter Ankerstål wrote
> Hi!
>
> I recently upgraded my system to 11-CURRENT (FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0
> r295087: Sun Jan 31 10:21:31 CET 2016) and after that all of my other
> devices in the network complains about arp-flapping:
>
> arp: 172.25.0.1 moved from
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 08:31:43AM +0100, Peter Ankerstål wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I recently upgraded my system to 11-CURRENT (FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0
> r295087: Sun Jan 31 10:21:31 CET 2016) and after that all of my other
> devices in the network complains about arp-flapping:
>
> arp: 172.25.0.1 mov
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Mark Peek wrote:
MP>Yes, it does appear to be due to this commit. The first address on the
MP>interface queue has an address of 0.0.0.0. Here's a patch that works for
MP>me to block the messages. I'm guessing at the correct behavior so use at
MP>your own risk. At least the vo
hi, there!
> Same here. My -CURRENT system is replying to those ARP request which carry
> 0.0.0.0 as sender IP address:
>
> 14:43:33.706099 arp who-has 158.227.48.193 (ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) tell 0.0.0.0
> 14:43:33.706152 arp reply 0.0.0.0 is-at 0:d0:b7:3e:a0:fb
>
> > I think this is because I have
At 9:14 PM -0500 10/19/01, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>Below is the patch that I've sent to the people who reported the
>problem, I'm waiting to hear back from them that it works.
Thanks for the real patch. It appears to work fine on my system. No
log messages and arps look good so far.
Mark
To Uns
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 04:58:21PM -0700, Mark Peek wrote:
> At 11:23 AM +0200 10/18/01, Harti Brandt wrote:
> >On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Max Khon wrote:
> >
> >MK>hi, there!
> >MK>
> >MK>On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:00:52AM +0200, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
> >MK>
> >MK>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:11:45PM
At 11:23 AM +0200 10/18/01, Harti Brandt wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Max Khon wrote:
>
>MK>hi, there!
>MK>
>MK>On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:00:52AM +0200, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
>MK>
>MK>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:11:45PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>MK>> > I've seen this when DHCP fails to all
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 11:12:48AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
> I have run tcpdump all night to find out what happens. The host receives
> an ARP request with a source address of 0.0.0.0:
>
> 18:33:51.222688 arp who-has hydra tell 0.0.0.0
> 0001 0800 0604 0001 0030 65c6 a
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
TL>To expand a little...
TL>
TL>> That said, it's probably a good idea to never ARP for 0.0.0.0,
TL>> since a "who has" in that case is a really dumb idea, since,
TL>> as weas pointed out, it's intended to mean "this host", in the
TL>> absence of an IP ad
To expand a little...
> That said, it's probably a good idea to never ARP for 0.0.0.0,
> since a "who has" in that case is a really dumb idea, since,
> as weas pointed out, it's intended to mean "this host", in the
> absence of an IP address (i.e. 0.0.0.0 is not an IP address,
> it's a special va
"Jose M. Alcaide" wrote:
> I found something interesting: these messages are caused by ARP requests
> carrying 0.0.0.0 as the sender IP address. All of them come from Apple
> Macintosh (over 40 different machines). I am not sure whether 0.0.0.0 is a
> legal sender IP address in an ARP request; 0.0
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 10:55:25PM -0800, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
> > After rebuilding the kernel two days ago (Oct 15), I am getting lots of
> > messages like these:
> >
> > arp: 00:30:65:de:99:32 is using my IP address 0.0.0.0!
> > arp: 00:0a:27:b0:a7:0
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Max Khon wrote:
MK>hi, there!
MK>
MK>On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:00:52AM +0200, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
MK>
MK>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:11:45PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
MK>> > I've seen this when DHCP fails to allocate an address.
MK>> >
MK>>
MK>> But I am not using DH
hi, there!
On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 12:00:52AM +0200, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:11:45PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > I've seen this when DHCP fails to allocate an address.
> >
>
> But I am not using DHCP. Maybe there are other machines in the LAN (it is
> a *big*
On Wednesday 17 October 2001 11:11 am, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I've seen this when DHCP fails to allocate an address.
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
> > After rebuilding the kernel two days ago (Oct 15), I am getting lots of
> > messages like these:
> >
> > arp: 00:30:65:de:99:32
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:11:45PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I've seen this when DHCP fails to allocate an address.
>
But I am not using DHCP. Maybe there are other machines in the LAN (it is
a *big* LAN) trying to get their addresses using DHCP, and now -CURRENT
shows a message whenever d
I've seen this when DHCP fails to allocate an address.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
> After rebuilding the kernel two days ago (Oct 15), I am getting lots of
> messages like these:
>
> arp: 00:30:65:de:99:32 is using my IP address 0.0.0.0!
> arp: 00:0a:27:b0:a7:06 is using my IP
> Once again I'm trying to port Arcnet driver from NetBSD/amiga to
> FreeBSD/i386 (like I did more than a year ago for 3.x). The problem is in
Wow! I might be able to make the Arcnet board in my Tandy 6000 XENIX
machine actually talk to someone someday!?!?!?!? COOL! :)
(Actually, that machin
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, andrea wrote:
> [etc.]
If I read you correctly, what you want to do is something like this:
internet
|
main router
192.168.1.1/24
|
|-- other hosts on 192.168.1.0/25 subnet
|
192.168.1.2/25
"Crist J. Clark" wrote:
> Andy V. Oleynik wrote,
> [Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > andrea wrote:
> >
> > > I have to add a gateway to my net for experimental reasons.
> > > Actually there are : a main-router that works as interface to the
> > > Internet,
> > > and some hos
Andy V. Oleynik wrote,
[Charset koi8-r unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> andrea wrote:
>
> > I have to add a gateway to my net for experimental reasons.
> > Actually there are : a main-router that works as interface to the Internet,
> > and some hosts on my sub net.
> >
> > Internet---
andrea wrote:
> I have to add a gateway to my net for experimental reasons.
> Actually there are : a main-router that works as interface to the Internet,
> and some hosts on my sub net.
>
> Internet-MyRouterMySubNet
>
> NOw i need to configure one host of MYSubNet to act as a gatwa
At 12:22 pm +0100 5/4/99, andrea wrote:
>I have to add a gateway to my net for experimental reasons.
>Actually there are : a main-router that works as interface to the Internet,
>and some hosts on my sub net.
>
>Internet-MyRouterMySubNet
>
>NOw i need to configure one host of MYSubN
34 matches
Mail list logo
