Re: Fragment questions
On 03/19/15 12:38, Emeric POUPON wrote: Hello, I noticed two questionable things in the fragmentation code: - in ip_fragment, we do not copy the flowid from the original mbuf to the fragmented mbuf. Therefore we may output very desynchronized fragments (first fragment emitted far later the second fragment, etc.) - in the ip_newid macro, we do htons(V_ip_id++)) if we do not use randomized id. In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the same id. Both problems combined lead to bad packet reassembly on the remote host. What do you think? Hi, I think this issue is already fixed: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/netinet/ip_output.c?revision=278103view=markup --HPS ___ 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
Fragment questions
Hello, I noticed two questionable things in the fragmentation code: - in ip_fragment, we do not copy the flowid from the original mbuf to the fragmented mbuf. Therefore we may output very desynchronized fragments (first fragment emitted far later the second fragment, etc.) - in the ip_newid macro, we do htons(V_ip_id++)) if we do not use randomized id. In multi core systems, we may emit successive packets with the same id. Both problems combined lead to bad packet reassembly on the remote host. What do you think? Emeric ___ 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
Re: Unbalanced LACP link
On 03/17/15 at 12:34P, Adrian Chadd wrote: On 17 March 2015 at 11:33, Jason Wolfe nitrobo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Hans Petter Selasky h...@selasky.org wrote: On 03/16/15 10:37, Vitalii Duk wrote: I've changed use_flowid to 0 and it helped! But isn't it setting significant? In a description it says Shift flowid bits to prevent multiqueue collisions. Hi, Maybe your ethernet hardware is not properly setting the m_flowid ... --HPS Flip use_flowid back to 1 and try setting net.link.lagg.default_flowid_shift / net.link.lagg.X.flowid_shift to 0 as Hiren suggested. r260179 added this shift, which has caused us balancing issues with the i350/igb. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revisionrevision=260179 Based on Adrian's comment about igb/ixgbe not setting the 'full flowid' under normal conditions, does that mean this shift should be 0 by default to ensure we don't break balancing for devices that only set the CPU/MSIX queue? Or we can just see if there's anything wrong with putting the full 32 bit RSS flowid in received packets that have them. It'd be nice to have but for now I am proposing following to fix a known broken case because of an optimization: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2098 Cheers, Hiren pgpJJNjYcaj59.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gre(4) over IPv6
Hi, is anyone going to include gre over IPv6 into the current stable branch? It would be nice to have it in the upcoming 10.2 release. Kind regards Julian ___ 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
Re: Unremovable ARP entry and 'address already in use'
Guess was right on the money, thank you! It turns out that there was a route for that entire /23 on another interface for some unfathomable reason. I had to turn that iface down too to remove it, but once I did so, everything is once again peachy! Thank you! On 3/20/2015 午前 12:58, Eric van Gyzen wrote: On 3/19/2015 午前 11:20, Paul S. wrote: root@ipfw-0:~ # arp -d 110.62..211.87 arp: writing to routing socket: Invalid argument I have a vague memory of similar behavior when I had a misconfigured route. I think there was a route for a local interface address with an off-box gateway. (Don't ask. Long story. Not my fault! :) ) Eric ___ 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
Re: Unremovable ARP entry and 'address already in use'
On 3/19/2015 午前 11:20, Paul S. wrote: root@ipfw-0:~ # arp -d 110.62..211.87 arp: writing to routing socket: Invalid argument I have a vague memory of similar behavior when I had a misconfigured route. I think there was a route for a local interface address with an off-box gateway. (Don't ask. Long story. Not my fault! :) ) Eric ___ 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
opaque ifnet progress
Hi! It is already several years as the opaque ifnet has been discussed, and almost a year since it was announced to be worked on. For now I've got a branch in svn, where some proof of concept is done: http://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/ifnet I've described what's going on in wiki: https://wiki.freebsd.org/projects/ifnet If you are writing/maintaining a NIC driver, you must look there and share your opinion with me. You should also look at already converted drivers and again share your opinion. At current stage I need feeling of approvement and agreement from people who write drivers, since being on my own I don't feel confident that I am doing things right. So, please look at wiki and code! P.S. Of course job of converting all drivers to new KPI is extremely heavy lifting, so any help with the project if very much appreciated. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. ___ 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
