Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*iptables\s+breakage\s+WAS\(Re\:\s+dummy\s+as\s+IMQ\s+replacement\s*$/: 106 ]

Total 106 documents matching your query.

1. DF bit in ip_fragment fast path (score: 1)
Author: B <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 21 Mar 2005 08:14:50 -0500
Ok, I think i figured this one out as well - sorry dont have access to my test hardware still to verify. As i was suspecting this is related to iptables breaking backwards compatibility. Starting wit
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01177.html (12,897 bytes)

2. .12-rc1-bk1] multipath: early use of inlined function (score: 1)
Author: <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:50:37 +0000
jamal wrote: On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 20:09, Andy Furniss wrote: jamal wrote: Hi Remus, I could not reproduce this one - it is also a bit odd for calloc to fail. I dont have iptables 1.3.1 but i will ge
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01188.html (15,136 bytes)

3. ngestion schedulers (score: 1)
Author: Furniss <andy.furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 21 Mar 2005 17:41:09 -0500
Thanks for atching that btw - it was tricky; i have a strong feeling it was resolved by patch i sent. But what happens when you try without mirred? Lets debug that first. The fact that mirred fails i
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01194.html (14,148 bytes)

4. n, centrino speedstep even more broken than in 2.6.10 (score: 1)
Author: rton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:15:46 +0000
jamal wrote: On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 16:50, Andy Furniss wrote: jamal wrote: But what happens when you try without mirred? Lets debug that first. The fact that mirred fails is very strange - shouldnt;
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01200.html (14,700 bytes)

5. 1 oops in skb_drop_fraglist (score: 1)
Author: .furniss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 21 Mar 2005 22:31:03 -0500
Thanks for all your efforts. I will be back on my regular setup by tommorow evening and should be able to hopefuly test this. I am going to try: - latest iproute2 with 1.3.x ipt changes - i am just
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01207.html (12,645 bytes)

6. ns (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 21:09:44 +0000
Thanks for all your efforts. I will be back on my regular setup by tommorow evening and should be able to hopefuly test this. I am going to try: - latest iproute2 with 1.3.x ipt changes - i am just g
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01232.html (15,181 bytes)

7. e: [PATCH: 2.6.12-rc1] mii: Add test for GigE support (score: 1)
Author: TRACTOR" <chas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:31:58 +0100
jamal wrote: As i was suspecting this is related to iptables breaking backwards compatibility. Starting with 1.3.0 the target structure changed ;-> (right at the top is a new field called version) I
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01268.html (11,707 bytes)

8. e: [22/*] [NETFILTER] Use correct IPsec MTU in TCPMSS (score: 1)
Author: us@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 22 Mar 2005 22:57:34 -0500
Ok, Andy - I have tested this and should all work. Can you double check on your side before i push kernel patch to Dave? I tested on ubuntu distro on an AMD athlon. Attached tar.gz with necessary pat
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01292.html (16,862 bytes)

9. s IMQ replacement (score: 1)
Author: <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 22 Mar 2005 23:01:56 -0500
I think its ok for now - we'll say if you want to use ipt you have to use iptables 1.3.1 and above. Just keep me in mind in the future. Like i suggested a while back since i am ripping code off iptab
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01294.html (11,449 bytes)

10. GI Altix cross partition functionality (2nd revision) (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:33:12 +0000
jamal wrote: Ok, Andy - I have tested this and should all work. Can you double check on your side before i push kernel patch to Dave? I tested on ubuntu distro on an AMD athlon. Attached tar.gz with
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01338.html (15,282 bytes)

11. e: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: 23 Mar 2005 14:45:12 -0500
Needs investigation. Lets defer for now, and see if it continues to happen Good - hopefully we can now get to where you started ;-> I will send the kernel patch to Dave later. For me all targets are
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01339.html (14,467 bytes)

12. PATCH 2.6.12-rc1-mm1] net/ethernet/eth.c - eth_header (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:53:56 +0000
jamal wrote: Ok, try the module thing; actually try to modprobe mark target first and see if that works as well. Looks like they load OK - anyway I rebooted and modprobed ipt and ipt_MARK before test
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01350.html (14,217 bytes)

13. e: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: 23 Mar 2005 16:07:23 -0500
Ok, this is my worry - that it works when everything is compiled in but not when as modules. So when you rebuild compile everything in. cheers, jamal
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01351.html (13,549 bytes)

14. net/ethernet/eth.c - eth_header (score: 1)
Author: zik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:46:42 +0000
jamal wrote: On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 15:53, Andy Furniss wrote: but I can now follow the action ipt MARK line with an action mirred .. and I just get the MARK error tablename: mangle hook: NF_IP_PRE_RO
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01355.html (13,979 bytes)

15. e: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:12:48 +0000
Andy Furniss wrote: jamal wrote: On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 15:53, Andy Furniss wrote: but I can now follow the action ipt MARK line with an action mirred .. and I just get the MARK error tablename: mangl
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01356.html (14,597 bytes)

16. IMQ replacement (score: 1)
Author: Vicente Feito <vicente.feito@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 23 Mar 2005 19:34:31 -0500
Aha! The finger is still pointing to iptables version thing. More breakage than i thought. I dont get this message and it works just fine. What iptables version are you using? I tested with 1.3.1. ch
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01359.html (13,710 bytes)

17. tats (score: 1)
Author: ladimir Kondratiev <vkondra@xxxxxxx>
Date: 23 Mar 2005 19:53:28 -0500
Never mind, I have reproduced this as well. It doesnt happen in all targets it seems - just some. I will look at the netfilter code later and try and figure to unbreak this. I think i will have to fi
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01362.html (14,992 bytes)

18. e: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement (score: 1)
Author: dra@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 01:00:42 +0000
jamal wrote: On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 18:12, Andy Furniss wrote: Noticed I get this in logs Mar 23 23:11:18 amd kernel: MARK: targinfosize 8 != 4 Aha! The finger is still pointing to iptables version th
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01363.html (14,495 bytes)

19. e: iptables breakage WAS(Re: dummy as IMQ replacement (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 01:08:07 +0000
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01364.html (13,732 bytes)

20. errupt problem: e1000 & Super-Micro X6DVA motherboard (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Mar 2005 06:32:27 -0500
I can confirm your sanity ;-> Ok, I have figured the cause fatale at least - some targets have multiple versions. MARK happens to be one of those. The reason TOS and others worked is because they onl
/archives/netdev/2005-03/msg01376.html (14,766 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu