Re: MFC requests for 6.3
At 02:24 PM 10/31/2007, Andrew Thompson wrote: >See >http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/net/if_bridge.c?only_with_tag=RELENG_6 Thank you for pointing this out Yes, I do see code that discards packets when a flag called IFBIF_PRIVATE is set. This is primarily what we need. As you can guess from this and other requests, I'm looking to revise the configuration on some specialized networking boxen so that NAT, bandwidth control, and LAN isolation are handled in the kernel rather than in user space. --Brett Glass ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 02:14:47PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > At 01:43 PM 10/31/2007, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > >> I'd also be interested in seeing the latest version of > >> bridge(4) brought in. > > > >Its fully up to date in RELENG_6 except for the vlan trunking support > >which I dont plan to merge. Was there something in particular or was it > >just the vlan code? > > Actually, it's the "private" option I'm interested in. I want to create > a server in which nodes on two Ethernet ports are on the same IP subnet > but are isolated That is, I do not want them to be able to exchange > information with one another through the server, but I want them all > to be able to communicate with the server. See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/net/if_bridge.c?only_with_tag=RELENG_6 Its there. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
At 01:43 PM 10/31/2007, Andrew Thompson wrote: >> I'd also be interested in seeing the latest version of >> bridge(4) brought in. > >Its fully up to date in RELENG_6 except for the vlan trunking support >which I dont plan to merge. Was there something in particular or was it >just the vlan code? Actually, it's the "private" option I'm interested in. I want to create a server in which nodes on two Ethernet ports are on the same IP subnet but are isolated That is, I do not want them to be able to exchange information with one another through the server, but I want them all to be able to communicate with the server. --Brett Glass ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:51:17PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > At 02:36 AM 10/30/2007, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > > >Hello Brett, > > > >ng_nat is part of 6-STABLE > > > I'd also be interested in seeing the latest version of > bridge(4) brought in. Its fully up to date in RELENG_6 except for the vlan trunking support which I dont plan to merge. Was there something in particular or was it just the vlan code? Andrew ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
Brett Glass wrote: >> ng_nat is part of 6-STABLE > > I've checked, and there is indeed a version there. But it's a > much older version without many useful option flags. ng_car > is not there at all. It IS there: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netgraph/ng_nat.c http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/net/ng_car/ -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 16:56:00 Brett Glass wrote: > At 08:40 AM 10/31/2007, Alexander Motin wrote: > >Brett Glass wrote: > >>> ng_nat is part of 6-STABLE > >> > >> I've checked, and there is indeed a version there. But it's a > >> much older version without many useful option flags. ng_car > >> is not there at all. > > > >It IS there: > >http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netgraph/ng_nat.c > > The RELENG-6 version is dated from July. Has there been any newer > work? I seem to recall that in the mpd 5 announcement there was a > mention of new work on this node. Check the CVS logs from cvsweb as instructed. > >http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/net/ng_car/ > > Ah That's a port, not part of the base system, which is why > I didn't see it. This is good, because it would mean that it would > work with both 6.x and 7.x. Please, give Alexander a break. He is the reason you have all these nice things, mpd-[45] and several netgraph nodes. He does all the hard part. Please do your easy part. Do a little investigation on your own. All the info you want is here: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netgraph/ Alexander, I apologize for this. Nikos ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
At 08:40 AM 10/31/2007, Alexander Motin wrote: >Brett Glass wrote: >>> ng_nat is part of 6-STABLE >> >> I've checked, and there is indeed a version there. But it's a >> much older version without many useful option flags. ng_car >> is not there at all. > >It IS there: >http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netgraph/ng_nat.c The RELENG-6 version is dated from July. Has there been any newer work? I seem to recall that in the mpd 5 announcement there was a mention of new work on this node. >http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/net/ng_car/ Ah That's a port, not part of the base system, which is why I didn't see it. This is good, because it would mean that it would work with both 6.x and 7.x. --Brett ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
At 02:36 AM 10/30/2007, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: >Hello Brett, > >ng_nat is part of 6-STABLE I've checked, and there is indeed a version there. But it's a much older version without many useful option flags. ng_car is not there at all. I'd also be interested in seeing the latest version of bridge(4) brought in. --Brett Glass ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
> Brett Glass wrote: >> I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed from >> -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. In particular, >> I'd like to see some of the Netgraph nodes which are new or which have seen >> extensive development brought in -- ng_nat and ng_car in particular. Bringing >> in the latest version of ng_nat would allow more flexible in-kernel NAT, >> while ng_car (which doesn't seem to be in 6-STABLE at all) would allow >> burstable traffic shaping -- something that DUMMYNET doesn't have. The >> latest version of mpd wouldn't be fully usable unless these and other >> Netgraph code that was developed for it are there Most of Netgraph changes were merged to RELENG_6. ng_nat changes were merged 3 months ago. Latest ng_car is not merged, but for FreeBSD 5-6.x it is present as net/ng_car port. Latest 4.3 and 5.0 mpd are able to determine actual system capabilities at the build time. To have ng_car support on FreeBSD 5-6.x you should install mpd from ports with setting ng_car checkbox. -- Alexander Motin ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
On Monday 29 October 2007 00:22:34 Brett Glass wrote: > I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed > from -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. In > particular, I'd like to see some of the Netgraph nodes which are new or > which have seen extensive development brought in -- ng_nat and ng_car in > particular. Bringing in the latest version of ng_nat would allow more > flexible in-kernel NAT, while ng_car (which doesn't seem to be in > 6-STABLE at all) would allow burstable traffic shaping -- something that > DUMMYNET doesn't have. The latest version of mpd wouldn't be fully > usable unless these and other Netgraph code that was developed for it > are there Hello Brett, ng_nat is part of 6-STABLE and maybe Alexander(mav@) would like to bring in ng_car as well. Don't know the MFC policies or other possible difficulties. Let him know of your request. HTH Nikos ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
Brett Glass wrote: > I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed from > -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. In particular, > I'd like to see some of the Netgraph nodes which are new or which have seen > extensive development brought in -- ng_nat and ng_car in particular. Bringing > in the latest version of ng_nat would allow more flexible in-kernel NAT, > while ng_car (which doesn't seem to be in 6-STABLE at all) would allow > burstable traffic shaping -- something that DUMMYNET doesn't have. The > latest version of mpd wouldn't be fully usable unless these and other > Netgraph code that was developed for it are there I'd like to add geom_multipath to the wishlist :) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Goran Lowkrantz wrote: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Brett Glass wrote: I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed from -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. The thing that's worried me, following only [EMAIL PROTECTED] traffic, were the reports about the new em driver (6.6.6?) causing hangs and other problems with people who have been updating RELENG_6 - have those who had those problems seen their issues resolved? I've got remote boxes using em that I can't risk making inaccessible and can't test locally. All my problems with watchdog timeouts and em 6.6.6 occurred when em shared interrupt with USB but I don't know if it's MB, em or usb that's the problem. Removing USB from the kernel or switching to polling and the driver works just fine. The fact that one of my test machines didn't have any problems was because it had no USB in it's kernel. I had removed USB as I had problems with watchdog timeouts with the bge driver when I first upgraded to the D915GAV MB ages ago. The bge also shared interrupt with USB. Thanks. /var/run/dmesg.boot says my em0 and em1 don't share an IRQ with USB or anyone else, so sounds like I'm in the clear, yay. But it still seems like something the vendor (Intel?) should be looking into before a another release on RELENG_6 is cut - even if USB is the culprit, it sounded like the problems started for em users when the driver was updated from 6.2.9 to 6.6.6. Yes, that's correct. But then 6.6.6 is faster, so it may be that we have a timing problem in any driver when they share interrupt with a Gigant locked driver. Isn't there a new non-Gigant USB driver that is waiting for testers? I have two workstations with em that needs usb that I could test the combination on. /glz ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Brett Glass wrote: I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed from -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. The thing that's worried me, following only [EMAIL PROTECTED] traffic, were the reports about the new em driver (6.6.6?) causing hangs and other problems with people who have been updating RELENG_6 - have those who had those problems seen their issues resolved? I've got remote boxes using em that I can't risk making inaccessible and can't test locally. All my problems with watchdog timeouts and em 6.6.6 occurred when em shared interrupt with USB but I don't know if it's MB, em or usb that's the problem. Removing USB from the kernel or switching to polling and the driver works just fine. The fact that one of my test machines didn't have any problems was because it had no USB in it's kernel. I had removed USB as I had problems with watchdog timeouts with the bge driver when I first upgraded to the D915GAV MB ages ago. The bge also shared interrupt with USB. /glz ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
On 10/28/07, Brian Behlendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Goran Lowkrantz wrote: > >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Brett Glass wrote: > >>> I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed from > >>> -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. > >> > >> The thing that's worried me, following only [EMAIL PROTECTED] traffic, > >> were the reports about the new em driver (6.6.6?) causing hangs and other > >> problems with people who have been updating RELENG_6 - have those who had > >> those problems seen their issues resolved? I've got remote boxes using > >> em that I can't risk making inaccessible and can't test locally. > > > > All my problems with watchdog timeouts and em 6.6.6 occurred when em shared > > interrupt with USB but I don't know if it's MB, em or usb that's the > > problem. > > Removing USB from the kernel or switching to polling and the driver works > > just fine. > > > > The fact that one of my test machines didn't have any problems was because > > it > > had no USB in it's kernel. I had removed USB as I had problems with watchdog > > timeouts with the bge driver when I first upgraded to the D915GAV MB ages > > ago. The bge also shared interrupt with USB. > > Thanks. /var/run/dmesg.boot says my em0 and em1 don't share an IRQ with > USB or anyone else, so sounds like I'm in the clear, yay. But it still > seems like something the vendor (Intel?) should be looking into before a > another release on RELENG_6 is cut - even if USB is the culprit, it > sounded like the problems started for em users when the driver was updated > from 6.2.9 to 6.6.6. When I have an easy-to-repro problem I can generally fix it in short order. The problem is this is not something that I've repro'd. I am aware of the reports, and I'm always interested in helpful data, I will have my test engineer work overtime (hear that Steve :) to get a repro this week. Keep those cards and letter coming :) Jack ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Goran Lowkrantz wrote: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Brett Glass wrote: I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed from -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. The thing that's worried me, following only [EMAIL PROTECTED] traffic, were the reports about the new em driver (6.6.6?) causing hangs and other problems with people who have been updating RELENG_6 - have those who had those problems seen their issues resolved? I've got remote boxes using em that I can't risk making inaccessible and can't test locally. All my problems with watchdog timeouts and em 6.6.6 occurred when em shared interrupt with USB but I don't know if it's MB, em or usb that's the problem. Removing USB from the kernel or switching to polling and the driver works just fine. The fact that one of my test machines didn't have any problems was because it had no USB in it's kernel. I had removed USB as I had problems with watchdog timeouts with the bge driver when I first upgraded to the D915GAV MB ages ago. The bge also shared interrupt with USB. Thanks. /var/run/dmesg.boot says my em0 and em1 don't share an IRQ with USB or anyone else, so sounds like I'm in the clear, yay. But it still seems like something the vendor (Intel?) should be looking into before a another release on RELENG_6 is cut - even if USB is the culprit, it sounded like the problems started for em users when the driver was updated from 6.2.9 to 6.6.6. Brian ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
At 06:29 PM 10/28/2007, Brian Behlendorf wrote: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Brett Glass wrote: I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed from -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. The thing that's worried me, following only [EMAIL PROTECTED] traffic, were the reports about the new em driver (6.6.6?) causing hangs and other problems with people who have been updating RELENG_6 - have those who had those problems seen their issues resolved? I've got remote boxes using em that I can't risk making inaccessible and can't test locally. The watchdog timeouts are pretty infrequent for me, but to answer your question, no, they are not fixed yet. ---Mike ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: MFC requests for 6.3
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Brett Glass wrote: I would like to request that some useful work on networking be MFCed from -CURRENT to -STABLE in time for the release of FreeBSD 6.3. The thing that's worried me, following only [EMAIL PROTECTED] traffic, were the reports about the new em driver (6.6.6?) causing hangs and other problems with people who have been updating RELENG_6 - have those who had those problems seen their issues resolved? I've got remote boxes using em that I can't risk making inaccessible and can't test locally. Brian ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
