> On Jun 4, 2024, at 3:02 AM, FreeBSD User <free...@walstatt-de.de> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm running a dual socket NUMA CURRENT host (Fujitsu RX host) running several
> jails. Jails are
> attached to a bridge device (bridge1), the physical device on that bridge is
> igb1 (i350 based
> NIC). The bridge is created via host's rc scripts, adding and/or deleting
> epair members of the
> bridge is performed by the jail.conf script.
>
> I do not know how long the setup worked, but out of the blue, last week after
> a longish
> poudriere run after updating the host to most recent CURRENT (as of today,
> latest update
> kernel and world) and performing "etcupdate" on both the host and all jails,
> traffic beyond
> the bridge is not seen on the network! All jails can communicate with each
> other. Traffic from
> the host itself is routed via igb0 to network and back via igb1 onto the
> bridge.
Can you elaborate your setup of network. I'm getting confused by the last
sentence.
Is it ( the network for jails ) a bridged one or routed one ?
>
> I check all setups for net.link.bridge:
>
> net.link.bridge.ipfw: 0
> net.link.bridge.log_mac_flap: 1
> net.link.bridge.allow_llz_overlap: 0
> net.link.bridge.inherit_mac: 0
> net.link.bridge.log_stp: 0
> net.link.bridge.pfil_local_phys: 0
> net.link.bridge.pfil_member: 0
> net.link.bridge.ipfw_arp: 0
> net.link.bridge.pfil_bridge: 0
> net.link.bridge.pfil_onlyip: 0
>
> I did not change anything (knowingly).
>
> I also have an oldish box running single socket processor, also driven by the
> very same
> CURRENT and similar, but not identical setup. The box is running very well
> and the bridge is
> working as expected.
>
> I was wondering if something in detail has changed in the handling of jails,
> epair and
> bridges. I followed the setup "after the book", nothing suspicious.
No functional changes to if_bridge / if_epair / jail since the beginning of
this year as far as I known.
>
> Maybe someone has a clue what might break the bridge.
>
> By the way: ifconfig bridge1 looks as always, igb1 as member and it doesn't
> make any
> difference whether I force the bridge to inherit igb1's MAC or not.
>
> We also checked for the switches whether BPDU Guard may have been triggered,
> but everything
> looks good from the outside - execept the fact the brdiged interface seems
> inactive (but up)
> from the outside ...
>
> Kind regards
>
> oh
>
> --
> O. Hartmann
>
Best regards,
Zhenlei
