similar to: NAT and v6

I downloaded a binary build of release candidate 2, and it was simply a bare directory tree with no README files or other directions. Does one simply plop this in /usr/local or is there more to it? (I'm on OS X.) -- Perry E. Metzger perry at piermont.com

On Sat, 6 May 2017 23:11:16 +0800 C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Perry E. Metzger via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Howdy! > > > > I've noticed that requests for help by people like me who are > > developing front ends are often lost in the noise in the llvm-dev > >

On Sat, 6 May 2017 13:46:18 -0700 Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'm not sure that will work well, because people won't usually > > wait a week to get their questions before moving on. If you're > > actively working full time on a project, you probably want > > answers in much less time. > > Sure s/week/day/ then.

On Sat, 6 May 2017 21:38:50 -0700 Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Perry, > > On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Perry E. Metzger > <perry at piermont.com> wrote: > >> Let me put it this way -- I'm pretty sure if you take it on > >> yourself to answer beginner questions on llvm-dev promptly, > >> nobody will *complain*.

On Sat, 6 May 2017 12:06:03 -0700 Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Perry E. Metzger via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > It makes sense to have a place for us to talk to each other where > > we're the dominant traffic, where our questions for each other > > aren't

On Sun, 7 May 2017 00:01:34 +0800 C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > > Having a place dedicated to mutual aid among front end developers > > (and of course assistance from anyone else who is willing to > > answer questions) would be nice. > > > > I referred you to that list in speaking from experience. cfe-dev > may have started life as a

It appears that the lda + sieve does not respect the userdb_mail setting, though the imap server does(!?). Is this expected behavior? Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry at piermont.com

Howdy! I've noticed that requests for help by people like me who are developing front ends are often lost in the noise in the llvm-dev list. Although LLVM is a wonderful and very productive framework, I've found that getting help on my front end has been very difficult, and learning necessary detail about the APIs and the like is often very, very challenging. Perhaps it would be good to

I'm experimenting with a 2.0 setup, using the sieve plugin for 2.0 from mercurial. Without sieve, everything seems to work fine. Once I put in a .dovecot.sieve file, though, nothing gets delivered, with the only hint of what's going wrong being this mess in syslog: Jul 7 13:18:00 bellman dovecot: lda(perry): Panic: file index-transaction.c: line 70 (index_transaction_init): assertion

On Thu, 11 May 2017 20:14:11 +1000 Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > FWIW, I think the "modern" way of doing any of this is with any one > of the following services (that don't need to be owned/maintained > by the LLVM Foundation): > > - Stack Overflow (maybe if it gets large enough, get a "vertical" > for just

Pardon the length of this reply, but it seemed useful to be explicit about my concerns. On Sun, 7 May 2017 00:55:51 +0800 C Bergstrom <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > You don't seem to be listening, but one last try. I listened. I respectfully disagree. > If you have a FE related question - Ask on cfe-dev and if you don't > get a response I'd be surprised. I

In the setup I'm looking now there are IPv4-only and IPv6-only SIP-clients (or UA's) but the Proxies (or servers) are v4 and v6 dual-stacked (to make things a bit easier). I think there will be a lot of IPv6-only SIP-clients (e.g. mobile clients and all the existing IPv4-NAT'ed networks) and a lot of IPv4-only "old legacy" SIP-clients. We have to find ways to deal with such

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 08:41:06AM +0200, Marcus Schopen wrote: > I'm running some tinc clients behind a NAT (masquerading, Cisco Router) > connecting to a host outside on a public IP in a different network. The > tunnels get unstable every few minutes and I see packet loss when > pinging the clients on their internal tunnel IPs from the host side. > Before putting the tinc

Hi Guus, Am Freitag, den 25.09.2015, 09:36 +0200 schrieb Guus Sliepen: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 08:41:06AM +0200, Marcus Schopen wrote: > > > I'm running some tinc clients behind a NAT (masquerading, Cisco Router) > > connecting to a host outside on a public IP in a different network. The > > tunnels get unstable every few minutes and I see packet loss when > >

Hi, I'm running some tinc clients behind a NAT (masquerading, Cisco Router) connecting to a host outside on a public IP in a different network. The tunnels get unstable every few minutes and I see packet loss when pinging the clients on their internal tunnel IPs from the host side. Before putting the tinc clients behind the NAT they were running on public IPs too (clients and host in

Hi ! Recently i switched my internet provider, to get more speed but another braindead setup regarding public ip addresses. I now have 4 PPTP Tunnel available, of which i''m using one as the gateway ip doing masquerading to other machines in my local lan, excluding three other machines, which i would like to use 1:1 nat to get them a direct access to one of the pptp tunnels. I was

I have some tinc nodes behind a nat router. Which ipaddress should i use in de host file for the tinc nodes behind a nat router. The internet ipaddress or the private ipaddress ? Perry

Hi, Hopefully someone can help me. I've been trying to set up a private vpn, for both internal ipv6 and ipv4 traffic. There are two Hosts involved with the vpn at the moment. I've been struggling with this but am now going round in circles - Can anyone recognise and explain what i'm doing wrong? The tinc daemons are listening on an ipv4 address, connected to the standard

On Mon, May 15, 2017 09:53, wwp wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2017 09:22:54 +0200 "Walter H." > <walter.h at mathemainzel.info> wrote: > >> On Sun, May 14, 2017 11:00, wwp wrote: >> > On Sat, 13 May 2017 13:08:17 +0200 "Walter H." >> > <Walter.H at mathemainzel.info> wrote: >> > >> > This might become off-topic with my

Currently, if IPv6-enabled rsync is run as --daemon, it will perform a wildcard bind(2) on an AF_INET6 socket and expect that IPv4 traffic will be forwarded to the v6 socket (IPv4 mapped address, RFC2553). This has never worked on OpenBSD which disallows IPv4 mapped addresses for security reasons. On FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT, where the behavior is subject to configuration, the default was switched to