search for: untags

Using K-9 Mail to IDLE on a test folder "MyIncTmp". When there is a flag change on a message in the folder, which generates an untagged FETCH, K-9 Mail responds with a DONE, but dovecot does not exit IDLE state (LOG 1). However, if a new message is delivered, generating an untagged EXISTS, K-9 Mail responds the same way, with a DONE, and dovecot does exit IDLE state. (LOG 2) You

...Do not adjust SP to no longer cover local variables before calling _Unwind_Resume. 2) Never tail-call _Unwind_Resume. With these restrictions (that Peter mentioned in the email I link below) we can avoid the need to instrument landing pads and just rely on instrumentation in the unwinder that untags stacks as it goes. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-November/136807.html I don't believe this should be a problem, since it seems that neither LLVM nor GCC ever do this at the moment -- hence a new restriction should not be too onerous. --- Which part of the toolchain should unt...

Hi, I have created a libvirt network on top of a OVS bridge (named vlan-br) which receives all VLAN tagged packets, i.e. connected to a trunk port. The definition xml is below. What I want to achieve in the portgroup definition 'trunk-native-1221' is to allow 1221 as untagged/native but rest all VLAN as tagged. The following portgroup definition works, but I don't want to enumerate

Hi, The attached patches enables the bridge to filter and forward packets according to their IEEE 802.1q headers. The goals behind this change include : - Enable running STP on 802.1q tagged networks. STP packets must be untagged. It isn't obvious how else to enable STP with the current bridge and vlan code. - Add native support for an untagged vlan. Currently an untagged vlan can

Andrew and Dennis are spot on. Their conclusions about your server being connected to an access port and not a trunk port would be my conclusion as well. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn < dennisml at conversis.de> wrote: > Hi Boris, > what I'd like to know is the actual VLAN configuration of the switch > port (link-type and tagged and untagged VLANs).

<I apologize if this arrives twice... I sent it first from an non-subscribed address, don't know if that'll get to the list or not --JJ> Hi folks, I have an implementation question regarding bridging on a linux box between a catalyst trunk port and a cisco 26something w/802.1q subinterfaces. So right now, there's no vlan trunking going on on the link my bridging firewall sits

I am brand new to rails and I am attempting to make my first web app. I have quickly run into my first problem however that I can''t seem to get by. It seems like it would be easy to get around (with my knowledge of other languages besides ruby), but I can''t seem to get by it. Right now, I have a note model that contains attributes, :title (string) :content (text) and :tags

On 25 January 2015 at 15:12, Boris Epstein <borepstein at gmail.com> wrote: > OK... but why does it need to be a trunk port? > Because a trunk port will "trunk" the vlan. A VLAN is basically a 4 byte "tag" that gets injected into the packet header when the packet enters the VLAN network. When we trunk a VLAN we say to the switch "pass packets on VLAN x but

Hello Timo, There seems to be something broken in v2.1 latest hg version: # 2.1.1 (94de7605f50f) 1 namespace * NAMESPACE (("" "/")("virtual/" "/")) NIL NIL * OK Namespace completed. Please note that the "OK Namespace completed." is send untagged. It worked on below version: # 2.1.1 (315f0d8cc2b2) 1 namespace * NAMESPACE ((""

I''m trying to implement simple untagged vlans on our switch and have misconfigured something.. ISP gw is on the default vlan1 (untagged) Router eth1 is setup on the switch with default vlan1 and member of vlan4. eth0 is default vlan4 which connects to the clients that are all default members of vlan4 eth0 is x.x.x.86/28 This is what clients are connecting to as their gw.. (no

Hi, On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 6:48 AM Matthew Malcomson <Matthew.Malcomson at arm.com> wrote: > > Hello again, > > I have been thinking more about the GCC implementation of hwasan and > found a few more questions that I would really appreciate help with. > > --- > I've noticed a match-all condition in the compiler inline > instrumentation, but can't see

Setup as follows: class Resource < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user validates_presence_of :filename validates_uniqueness_of :filename, :scope => "user_id", :message => "already exists, try uploading another file or deleting first." acts_as_taggable :join_class_name => ''TagResource''

Hi I have a quad processor Compaq Proliant 5500. The output from dmesg seems strange (I have also sent a copy to freebsd-smp to ask about smp issues) and there are also some performance issues which I suspect are smp related. Could anyone who fels so inclined please take a look at the output and let me have any comments. Thanks _______________________________ Copyright (c) 1992-2002 The

Hello. I''m trying to use vlan in domU, but have something strange: I created bridge on eth0. This interface was configured as trunk with vlan 300, 301. I use this bridge in my domU, and I can see tagged packets when run tcpdump in domU. Also I created interface on domU to work with vlan 300. On this interface I see untagged packets in vlan300. And everything looks fine. But when

Do you need the whole configuration? On the switch end, we have the relevant VLAN (VLAN 48) with the assigned IP address of 192.168.48.101 and the range of ports (Gi1/0/1 - Gi1/0/8) assigned to that VLAN. Seems - and acts - like a legitimate setup and works fine, except for this particular instance. Thanks. Boris. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn < dennisml at

I put this to the smp list and to stable but have had no takers from wither. nThere are both smp and other system issues and I am just wondering if anyoe would be willing to take a look at this output from dmesg and let me have some advice Thanks david ----- Original Message ----- From: "vizion communication" <vizion@ixpres.com> To: <freebsd-smp@freebsd.org> Sent:

I'm trying to bridge a mix of 802.1q tagged and untagged Ethernet frames through the new Ethernet over GRE functionality in kernel 2.6.28 The hosts handling the tunnel (192.168.200.6, 192.168.200.2) are connected together through with a simple cross cable through their eth1 interface. The switches are connected to their respective eth0 interface, which is bridged with their respective gretap

Dovecot 2.2.5 In selected state: C: 1 SELECT &#-&#/# S: 1 NO Mailbox name is not valid mUTF-7 S: * OK [CLOSED] Previous mailbox closed. I can verify that this only seems to happen when the mailbox name is incorrect mUTF-7. Things work fine if I access a non-existent mailbox: C: 1 SELECT non-existent-mailbox S: * OK [CLOSED] Previous mailbox closed. S: a NO Mailbox doesn't exist:

Just curious, if I have my Polycom IP 550 phone VLAN tag 30, will the packets I send from my PC(on the PC port of the phone) have the same VLAN tag? THe PC is sending untagged packets. This e-mail, facsimile, or letter and any files or attachments transmitted with it contains information that is confidential and privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual(s) and

I'm getting close to executing the transition to the new debug info hierarchy. For reference, I've attached two WIP patches (which would be squashed before commit) and the WIP upgrade script I'm using. - transition-code.patch: Change the `DIDescriptor` hierarchy to lightweight wrappers around the subclasses of `DebugNode` (instead of rather heavier wrappers around