similar to: [Bridge] Hotmail login error with bridge

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:50:00 -0800 "kingz" <jzhang@cienettechnologies.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for bothering you! > > Now I am in deep trouble on Ethernet bridge and VLAN, I posted my issue, > but no reply, so I only beg for your help! > > Could you give me any comment, hint, way to fix my issue? Thank you very > much! > > The following

Hi All, Very sorry for posting my question again, because I want to tell you more details on my issue, and it is very important for us! Now I am having trouble in Ethernet bridge and 802.1Q VLAN, I have the following network: Internet | Gateway ( One UPNP device) | | <--------- If insert one Ethernet bridge box in here , somethings changes | H u b

Hi All, I posted this question several days before, as if no one reply, any help, hint would be highly appreciated! PLEASE SAVE ME! Now I am having trouble in Ethernet bridge and 802.1Q VLAN, I have the following network: Internet | | Gateway | | <--------- If insert one Ethernet bridge box in here ,somethings changes | H u b ( one normal

Hi All, For my issue, first thanks to ALL, I have some idea of it. Also Thank Peter for his kind remind, I would become one good guy in this list. Most mentioned MTU, but how I assure that the problem is just MTU, how I debug it? Here is my bridge configuration: Internet | | Gateway | | eth0 Ethernet Bridge | eth1 | H u b ( one normal hub

Hi all, I am testing one QOS system, I want to control bandwidth by VLAN id. Here is my test network: Internet Gateway | | QOS control box ( Bridge box, Redhat 9, 2.4.28 kernel with ebtables-brnf-8_vs_2.4.28 patch) | | VLAN Switch | | PC PC In my QOS control box, it is a bridge box, I used Redhat 9, 2.4.28 kernel with ebtables-brnf-8_vs_2.4.28

Hi All, Today is a great day. My hotmail login error is fixed. Following Peter's advice, I used e1000 card, don't change any MTU , the hotmail login error went away! It is MTU issue, for VLAN tag traffice going through the bridge, the NICs in the bridge need support VLAN tag, e100/e1000 card can. Thanks to Peter, Stephen Hemminger, and All ! So far I know Intel e100/e1000 card can

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole > punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my > network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because > one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT [...]. This type of NAT > will stop any UDP hole

On 11 November 2015 at 21:57, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote: > it is entirely possible to write code that uses threads on Win32 and forks > on POSIX by abstracting the communication bits generically. Signalling could > work over pipes on both. > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365152(v=vs.85).aspx Hum... yes of course, but I

Hi Guus, Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT that won't use consistent source ports for UDP packets that are sent to different destination addresses. More formally, this

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:

Hi, At http://sourceforge.net/projects/ebtables/ you can find the following new releases: ebtables-brnf-3-vs-2.4.22 Changes: - let iptables see VLAN tagged IP traffic - bugfix for queued packets that get mangled in userspace - ebt_among module (Grzegorz Borowiak) - ebt_limit module (Tom Marshall) The patch compiles but I've done no further tests, but I probably didn't screw up.

On 12 November 2015 at 21:29, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: >> According to an online NAT check service, around 50% of NATs in the >> wild have this problem, making this a very real issue: >> http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/results.php > > Are you referring to port restricted NAT in the

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.4 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.4 Problems Corrected: 1. The error message: Error: No appropriate chain for zone <z1> to zone <z2> has been changed to one that is more self-explanatory: Error: No policy defined for zone <z1> to zone <z2> 2. When only an

fauno <fauno at kiwwwi.com.ar> writes: > Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> writes: >> (I realize that this means UPnP support could possibly be achieved >> simply by suggesting that the user spawn some standalone UPnP client >> process in the background from the tinc-up hook. That's not very >> user-friendly, though. Especially on Windows.) >

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=917 Summary: Kernel OOPS on Kernel 3.14.2 Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5 Component: NAT AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

Hi, All: I am tring to use STP function on bridge device that refer the BRIDGE-STP-HOWTO. And I use PING program to test it from PC1 to PC2. But the forward function is become too long when bridge topology change. How can I tuning the STP to make client connect to another again faster? I have been use follow command. But it seen not this issue. Bcause, if I run " arp -d " on

Hi, I hope this hasn't already been discussed to death, but I didn't find the answer through Google. In short, my question is: how can I advertise a Samba server through UPnP/Network Discovery? I'm currently using Samba 3.2.6, but should be able to upgrade if needed. I am trying to build an IPv6-only network, for now just for testing purposes. The problem I am having is that

Hi, I'm having trouble applying ebtables-brnf-3_vs_2.4.22.diff to 2.4.22-1.2166.nptl. Applying the patch did not go well. Can anyone help me with this? TIA. Andy Here is the output: [root@specwall linux-2.4.22-1.2166.nptl]# patch -p1 < ../ebtables-brnf-3_vs_2.4.22.diff patching file net/bridge/br_private.h Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] n Apply anyway?

On 12 November 2015 at 01:15, fauno <fauno at kiwwwi.com.ar> wrote: > Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> writes: >> (I realize that this means UPnP support could possibly be achieved >> simply by suggesting that the user spawn some standalone UPnP client >> process in the background from the tinc-up hook. That's not very >> user-friendly, though.

Folks, For what it's worth I used to have the hang at shutdown with brnf and kernel 2.4.26. An fsck on the boot drive fixed it (telling me it had nothing to do with whatever kernel I was running)...have you tried that? James -----Original Message----- From: Santiago Garcia Mantinan [mailto:bridge@manty.net] Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 5:51 AM To: Mirko Parthey Cc: