Hello, Well I've changed the network card (10Gbit bnx2x or be2net) by a less powerfull one (Gigabit bnx2) and it works very well.
Thank you for your time. Regards 2011/10/1 Jesse Gross <[email protected]> > On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Benoit ML <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi, > > > > 2011/10/1 Jesse Gross <[email protected]> > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Benoit ML <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hey, > >> > Thank for the answer. I'have the same matter with bnx2x on rhel6.1 > ... > >> > In the H3C documentation there is a subject about vlan (thank to > Leland) > >> > : > >> > "The default VLAN IDs of the Trunk ports on the local and peer devices > >> > must be the same. Otherwise, packets cannot be transmitted properly." > >> > What did you think about that ? > >> > >> Do you have a default vlan configured on the switch that is the same > >> as the one you are trying to use? If so, that would explain the > >> problem because it will cause the packets to be sent untagged on the > >> assumption that the remote switch will interprete them as the same > >> vlan. > >> > >> You could try creating a vlan with vconfig to see if it recognizes the > >> tagged traffic. > >> > > > > The native vlan (pvid) of the trunk port of the H3C switch is 99. The > switch > > can also carry tagged vlan 2 and 3702. > > The openvswitch port is configured like this : add-port br0 eth4 > > trunk=[0,2,3702], to carry untagged traffic and to carry vlan tagged to > the > > switch. > > I've tested with the vlan system (vconfig) : works juste fine. > > OK, sounds like it really is a driver issue. > > >> > >> > From your point of view what will be the best manner to have the thing > >> > works > >> > ? I've tested the last driver be2net from Emulex without success ... > >> > Eventually I can use another linux distribution ? > >> > >> Assuming that the physical switch is configured correctly, the > >> situation is improving with newer kernels and should be resolved for > >> all devices when Linux 3.1 is released. A distribution such as Ubuntu > >> that is more aggressive about tracking kernel releases will likely > >> have better results. > > > > > > Do you think that a 2.6.38 (ubuntu or fedora) or a 2.6.40 (fedora > updates) > > could be ok ? > > For my personnel information, what are the majors difference between now > and > > 3.1 ? The way how vlan are handle ? > > There's new vlan infrastructure in 2.6.37/38 and then drivers needed > to be converted over to use it, which was completed for 3.1. Some > drivers also worked around it on their own before the new > infrastructure. So basically the more recent the kernel, the more > likely it is work properly. > -- -- Benoit
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
