similar to: best MTU?

Hello, after upgrading my system from 7.1-RELEASE to recent RELENG_7 I noticed stalled network transfers in certain cases. I have an Intel PRO/100 ethernet adapter (card=0x00408086 chip=0x12298086 rev=0x0c). In general networking works fine. I can ping hosts, surf on websites and so on. But if I send large files (>1 MB) to my server the transfer stalls after a few kilobytes. This concerns FTP

Package: src:xen Version: 4.17.3+10-g091466ba55-1~deb12u1 Severity: wishlist I wasn't sure if this script comes from Debian or Xen or somewhere else, so I thought it safest to report it here. /etc/xen/scripts/vif-bridge handles MTU settings in the vif, but the otherwise similar /etc/xen/scripts/vif-openvswitch does not. I added it in, here's the diff-c and the full fixed file is also

Hi all, I currently have an Asterisk test server behind a TZ170 Sonicwall firewall / NAT box, with several DIDs. I've found that inbound IAX2 calls don't work reliably (i.e., I get a busy tone) unless I enable "Use Consistent NAT" in the Sonicwall. This feature is poorly documented by Sonicwall, so I thought I'd pass it along. Has anyone else run into this, or figured

I have been trying to optimise my ADSL connections for VOIP. Funny things were happening - for example increasing the ping packet size by 50% had no effect, but then adding one byte had a major effect. It took me a while to figure out that I was seeing the effects of the fixed ATM cell size. This is probably obvious to some of you. For the rest: ADSL uses ATM as its transport. An ATM

http://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=792 Summary: mtu and NAT wrong solution Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P4 Component: Miscellaneous AssignedTo: openssh-bugs at mindrot.org ReportedBy:

I have a bridge that has gigabit interfaces. The machine in question has the fun job of being a Bridge, Firewall and SMB server. Both of the Gigabit interfaces are connected to workstations directly via Xover cable (well MDI-X to be exact). My question is, if I enable jumbo frames on the gigabit interfaces will that make any difference in overall transfer rate of the bridge? I was thinking it

OK, here it is. Near perfect bandwidth calculation for ADSL users. Patch iproute2 with the HTB stuff and then this: It''s still a hack (as far as I can tell) because we are patching the rates tables, and hence I think it is only loosly coupled with the actual calculation of bytes in each bucket. However, it works very nicely for me! I have only been lightly testing with

Hello, I have an interesting question. I can''t find a solution anywhere to this problem. I have an adsl connection which is able to send a full data packet in about 150ms. I want to cut this time down to decrease latency while serving files, so I thought I''d try and reduce the packet size for the offending upload streams (my webserver). The trick is that I also want all other

Hey, My internet is provided via ADSL using PPPoE. When I take a look at ifconfig''s output, I see that eth0 has an MTU of 1500, and ppp0 has an MTU of 1492. I don''t _think_ that rp-pppoe (my pppoe util) is clamping the MSS. I am noticing some latency when there''s a lot of bandwidth in use (but not >90%). What should I clamp, eth0/ppp0? How much? And what with,

My telco is moving to feeding me over fiber, breaking out with a media converter to one Ethernet interface. At present, I am retaining the static feed over copper on eth0, and taking the two new feeds via vlans on eth1. I have configured the static IP feed on eth1:790 as vlan 790, and that seems to be fine, and eth1:780 as the PPPOE feed, and brought up PPPOE to give me an IP, that is

Hi all, I'm trying out bridging for my wireless and wired LAN, so that they can both use my PPPoE connection. Here's the network structure, pretty easy: darjeeling (192.168.1.7) ringo (192.168.1.3) (mtu 1500) (mtu 1500) \ / \ wlan0 <--br0 (mtu 1500)--> eth1

Our users are experiencing some unacceptable delay when trying to have a conversation. The delay is so noticeable that they keep stepping on each others words and resort to calling the customers via cell phone. Here is the setup SDSL Connection (PPPoA) Speedtouch 610 SDSL Modem 3Com 2224PWR Plus Switch (phones on separate VLAN) 8 Cisco 796 Phones All connecting to a remote Asterisk Server. We

Clients: Some sites just show the top area not the full page. Some sites cant be reached at all. I think it 90% may be the MTU/MSS problem. But I already have set the shorewall.conf CLAMPMSS=1400 or CLAMPMSS=Yes, but it doest make things good. I would be mad. Anybody helps me would so appreciated! If you want know more info. to diag my problem, I would be please to.

Hi All... I'm trying to get the intercom feature working on some snom 190 phones but having no luck... As you can see from the SIP trace below (from the called phone), intercom=true is being appended to the To: header as per requirements. I've email'd snom a few days ago but have yet to get a response. On my 190s, im running snom190-SIP 3.57v. I am pulling the config for the

Hi all I get a Cisco 1841 router, connecting the office through a CHAP PPPoE link: [...] interface Dialer1 ip address negotiated ip mtu 1492 ip nat outside ip virtual-reassembly encapsulation ppp ip tcp adjust-mss 1452 dialer pool 1 dialer-group 1 no cdp enable ppp authentication chap callin ppp chap hostname username at isp ppp chap password 0 s0meStr0ngP4sswd [...] As

Shorewall version 2.2.1 2 Interface setup. eth1: 10.10.1.3 eth0: 192.168.1.2 modem is 192.168.1.1 I need to be able to connect to my adsl modem, but when shorewall is up I get connection rejected. I have added "192.168.1.1 RETURN" above the line "192.168.0.0/16 logdrop # RFC 1918" in "/etc/shorewall/rfc1918" but still getting connection rejected Is there

Hi. I wrote in a reply to a mail on here recently that you can''t set mpu (minimum packet unit) on HTB as you can on CBQ. I''ve just noticed that there is a patch on devik''s site which does mpu and overhead. http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/qos/htb/ For dsl users mpu is, for practical purposes going to be 106 - overhead is still variable though, depending on packet size.

Everytime I see this in the logs my internet access stops for about 5 minutes. Nothing else follows in the logs. I have DSL. Any ideas? Aug 15 17:14:56 bonsai gconfd (root-6095): starting (version 2.14.0), pid 6095 user 'root' Aug 15 17:14:56 bonsai gconfd (root-6095): Resolved address "xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.mandatory" to a read-only configuration source at position

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Darren Tucker <dtucker at dtucker.net> wrote: > On 26 January 2018 at 06:44, Adrian Pascalau <adrian27oradea at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> [...] >> debug1: SSH2_MSG_KEXINIT sent [preauth] >> >> Here the debug mode stops, and there is no login prompt shown on the >> Putty window. > > > This behaviour is

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1266 Bug ID: 1266 Summary: bridge-nf-filter-pppoe-tagged mtu bug? Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Hardware: All OS: RedHat Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: bridging Assignee: