similar to: [Bridge] Feature enhancement - Disable unicast flooding

hi, I have to configure Xen server and DomU''s which should be able to talk to different vlans - depending on services put on DomU''s. I would like to enslave 2 NICs via bond interface. Both NICs are on trunk ports which are configured in the same way, the same native vlan. I don''t know, if I have to add vlans tagging to eth* interfaces then enslave tagged eth*

Hi, I think this is worth a note. It was generally said the decision between deny and reject (aka unreach) could be taken lightly - and most people seem to prefer "deny", which complicates things for an attacker, because packets just vanish without any report and tasks timeout. But from my viewpoint, this argument falls into the category "security by obscurity", and I found

I figured I should post this because before I went to do it I searched the web for caveats etc and didn''t really find much. So anyway, I set up bonding + vlan for a project. Computer is dell powerdge 350 with 2 intel 82559 10/100 nic running stock 2.4.20. I tried both the eepro100 and the e100 drivers for the nics, both work 802.1q and bonding are modules. Switch is cisco 2924xl-en

Thank you everyone. OK, the mystery deepens, I guess. The machine does need to support several VLAN's, it is currently on a trunkport (8021q encapsulated), it made it into the ARP table - which I specifically tested for by physically unplugging the table, clearing the ARP table and plugging it back in. The ARP table currently looks like this: hq#show arp Protocol Address Age (min)

In 2012 QEMU added UDP unicast network backend support https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/0e0e7facc775e9bb020314f48751b3d09f316c8b#diff-a0a1810b6e249e68f1a290e37399becb Checked latest libvirt on the git repo, and didn't see this as an option. So tried to use the mcast tunnel mode. I keep getting duplicate packets with BPDUs and LLDP packets going between the Point to point connection

Hi buddylove, In addition to the links Philipp provided you, here is some more reading which will hopefully help you better understand the difference between multicast and unicast communications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast Cheers, Jordan On 05/04/2016 06:39 AM, buddylove wrote: > @Phil > nice text... > just want to mention (or

Oh, well by your "In the end... its the same..." statement and your question of what the difference is (and mentioning connection tracking which is a completely different subject), I was a bit confused as to your query. Cheers, Jordan On 05/04/2016 09:55 AM, buddylove wrote: > I was already aware if this in the first place :-) > > On 04.05.2016 18:04, Jordan Erickson wrote:

also, does unicast individually send out streams to each listener (requiring lots of bandwidth) or does it broadcast a stream and users can "tap in" (low bandwidth)? -------Original Message------- From: "Dan Chokola (webmail)" <teckyd at earthlink.net> Sent: 02/28/03 10:46 PM To: icecast at xiph.org Subject: [icecast] Multicast/Unicast > > what does icecast use?

We recently migrated to an active directory controlled domain with the old linux pdc becoming just a member of the new domain. It previously had served as the WINS server. The WINS server settings update was missed on a few printers and these printers continued sending unicast name registration requests to the linux server. With over 300 requests per second being sent from these printers, it came

Good morning, On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 00:15 +0200, Fran Delgado wrote: > Hi, there! > I have a doubt about if this server supports unicast, multicast or > both. I was looking for information in the web but I couldn't found > anything. Anyone can help me? Icecast2 is a streaming solution that works using HTTP[0]. (HTTPS is also supported using both methods[1].) HTTP uses TCP[2][3]

Using a Linux bridge I see that none of the interfaces is set to promiscuous mode but on the other hand I don't see any dev_unicast_xxx calls in the bridge code... for the case of one of the interfaces being a physical NIC (e.g eth1), what's the magic that makes the NIC RX filtering be willing to accept frames whos dest mac isn't the NIC "primary" unicast mac? Also is there

you have 'a' doubt? precise your question or do you want to make a quiz here? this is f.... icecast and it's a damn good piece of software. runs like a honey down the nipple, up to 8 streams simultaneously including shoutcast. read the docs! On 04.05.2016 00:15, Fran Delgado wrote: > Hi, there! > I have a doubt about if this server supports unicast, multicast or both. > I

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com AssignedTo|pablo at netfilter.org |netfilter-buglog at lists.netf

Hello all, I'm having unusual difficulty configuring teaming with Centos 4.2. The 2 NIC's are Broadcom. The HW is HP DL360 and there is no teaming driver for RHEL4 since it comes with package (says HP). Since there is no teaming driver from centos (as far as I know), I tried the Broadcom Driver, configured the team file, but the team just wont come up. A Virtual Interface should be up

On 04/05/2016 03:48 πμ, buddylove wrote: > you have 'a' doubt? > precise your question or do you want to make a quiz here? > > this is f.... icecast and it's a damn good piece of software. > runs like a honey down the nipple, up to 8 streams simultaneously > including shoutcast. > read the docs! > > > > On 04.05.2016 00:15, Fran Delgado wrote: >>

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795 Summary: RELATED doesn't accommodate multicast UDP solicitation resulting in unicast reply Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component:

I have recently upgraded my firmware from v6.3 to v7.4. Now when the phone is booted or rebooted, the initial screen "Initializing Vlan" takes forever to initialize before it initializes IP. Any ideas/Thoughts? (Trying not to Revert back to v6.3). -C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello all, I have a CentOS box that has a NIC (eth0) on which I defined 4 VLAN's (counting the NIC itself): eth0, eth0.1, eth0.2 and eht0.3. Initially the Cisco switch was not partitioned into VLAN's which means that the only VLAN running on it was the default one (VLAN 1). I have then played with VLAN's a bit on the switch and at this point have two: VLAN 1 (which is default and can

if you read ahead you'll figure that the infrastructure of the network 'en gros' isn't made for it (yet). because of this (and not just because I am a fan of) I propose other trials with overlay networks which could (under proper application) even be more efficient than the multicast protocol(s) itself. Greets and out Gee ... .-. . . On 04.05.2016 18:04, Jordan Erickson wrote:

Hello to all I would like to know If some of you have already configured an Cisco IP Phone (7940 or 7960) to work in a different VLAN than the PC that is connected through the phone switch? I know that this can be done with the Skinny firmware, but I dont if it works with the SIP firmware. The Cisco technical staff told me that these phones dont support 802.1x but can work as pass-through.