Re: 0.0.0.0 bug revisited

Colin Pinkham (colin@iafrica.com)
Fri, 27 Oct 1995 13:12:26 +0000

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Brian 'MegaZone' Bikowicz: "Re: Routing a subnet (fwd)"
Previous message: Arno Griffioen: "Re: packet-storm??"
Maybe in reply to: John Jamerson: "0.0.0.0 bug revisited"

> Upgraded all 10 of my PM2E's on Saturday AM. Good to go. Now I'm
> getting the 0.0.0.0 bug bites (again) on the only PM I have that has
> 30 ports used.
>
> I'm on the road, using a laptop and Unix pine to do mail, so don't
> have access to the PC and its archive of Portmaster lore.
>
> How can I prevent/minimize the bug in the short term?? (except by
> rebooting the pm when I happen to catch it, or a user raises hell??).
>

Use a maximum of 27 or 28 ports which should minimise the problem.
There's no real need to reboot (I've found at least).

Regards,
Colin
> I need to do something positive REAL quick to keep the boss happy,
> and stay out of the employment lines.
>
> TIA
>
> John Jamerson
> Systems Administrator/WAN Manager
> CoastalNet/Global Information Exchange
> jamerson@coastalnet.com
>
>
>

Next message: Brian 'MegaZone' Bikowicz: "Re: Routing a subnet (fwd)"
Previous message: Arno Griffioen: "Re: packet-storm??"
Maybe in reply to: John Jamerson: "0.0.0.0 bug revisited"