On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronune...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Patrick Tracanelli < > eks...@freebsdbrasil.com.br> wrote: > >> Hey, what you are doing wrong is much more simple than you expect. >> >> > # ./kipfw em1 em2 > & /tmp/kipfw.log & >> > [1] 66583 >> >> Just run ./kipfw netmap:em1 netmap:em2 and this will probably work. >> >> Please remember to redirect kipfw output to somewhere you are not reading >> only *after* you are sure the output is showing errors. If you could read >> the output you would probably get something like “error opening em0” or >> something like that coming netmap. >> > > hello dear patrick > thank you, yes it did work now > at least it is counting packets > > but things are still weird, even though I have only count and allow rules, > and yes they are counting packets, when I run kipfw, every packet on em1 > and em2 gets dropped immediately. no matter they are allow rules counting > packets, packets get dropped and machine-A gets completely isolated from > machine-C > > any further help is appreciated > hello everybody, one clear and simple question: is anyone actually using netmap-ipfw on real NICs out there? or has anyone ever used? because every documentation I read, or video I watch, is based on vale NICs, not real ones; documentation is also not clear about or in fact existant regarding real NICs (this is not a complaint, I know netmap-ipfw is experimental and I dont expect it to be rich yet, but I am talking about any sort of doc, readme files, commit messages, mailing list excerpts...), not even the syntax netmap:NIC was clearly mentioned before I was told to do that I read the guy from BSDRP Project mentioning he got down on traffic after enabling netmap-ipfw, I have read the same thing from a guy mr Meyer, and from a couple others in different dates (but mostly in this list here) and everyone seem to gave given up. I started looking at the source code for extras/ and stuff but I am no hacker, and I could not figure out what I could be doing wrong. This is why I ask if anyone actually runs netmap-ipfw on real NICs. Im not asking for a recipe, Im just trying to figure out if I am focusing on testing something that will never work because it lacks a usable piece of code to make it run on real NICs (and I am not capable of coding it myself), or if I still doing something wrong... using netmap-ipfw with VALE ports is shows a very different behavior and works as expected and documented, not on real NICs has a complete different behavior, dropping everything even though it counts packets on an "allow" rule... _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
