- 1. ked fine with 2.6.9 (score: 1)
- Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:45:35 -0700
- rd and forward compatibility. Old kernels must continue to work with new tc for the policer using the old syntax. new kernels must continue to work with old tc
- /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00212.html (7,137 bytes)
- 2. ked fine with 2.6.9 (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:56:03 -0500 (EST)
- We cant compromise quality by handwaving on instinct. Famous last words: "that couldnt have possibly caused a bug
- /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00223.html (7,605 bytes)
- 3. e: One IP on 2 nics (score: 1)
- Author: Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:27:48 -0700
- from the delayed queue to the qdisc in a timer int
- /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00273.html (6,978 bytes)
- 4. IPSEC MIB instrumentatoin ?? (score: 1)
- Author: "Umasankar Mukkara" <mumasankar@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:45:35 -0700
- Hello, Native ipsec stack lacks proc file instrumentation for IPSEC statistics. Would a patch for this instrumentation be looked as a good one? Following can be the ipsec related counters in ESP4/AH4
- /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg01163.html (7,152 bytes)
- 5. Re: IPSEC MIB instrumentatoin ?? (score: 1)
- Author: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:56:03 -0500 (EST)
- Any idea what happened to the draft process? Is it likely to be re-issued and turned into an RFC? - James -- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxx>
- /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg01174.html (7,640 bytes)
- 6. Re: IPSEC MIB instrumentatoin ?? (score: 1)
- Author: "Umasankar Mukkara" <mumasankar@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:27:48 -0700
- re-issued and turned into an RFC? I think the draft did not proceed further (as confirmed by the author). I have posted a message in the IPSEC main mailing list and awaiting for the feedback. -Uma.
- /archives/netdev/2004-12/msg01224.html (6,978 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu