18.02.2017 19:05, Felix Fietkau:
On 2017-02-18 16:57, Mathias Kresin wrote:
@Felix: Would you please do a review of my changes. You added the
function in question with c536da3 "lantiq: add VLAN handling fixes to
xrx200 ethernet driver" but unfortunately without commit message.
I'm not sure
On 2017-02-18 16:57, Mathias Kresin wrote:
> 17.02.2017 11:42, Mauro Mozzarelli:
>> The BT Home Hub routers described in the scenario(s) below are connected
>> also on the LAN side.
>>
>> I ran further tests in the first SCENARIO (Red Ethernet as eth0.2)
>> monitoring the red Ethernet WAN end with
Mathias,
Thank you for the patch
I just built SNAPSHOT r3526-bececcc with your "fix arp package leaking
in xrx200" patch and the problem is solved.
Excellent work.
Thank you!
Mauro
On 18/02/17 15:57, Mathias Kresin wrote:
17.02.2017 11:42, Mauro Mozzarelli:
The BT Home Hub routers
Mathias,
Thank you for the patch
I just built SNAPSHOT r3526-bececcc with your "fix arp package leaking
in xrx200" patch and the problem is solved.
Excellent work.
Thank you!
Mauro
On 18/02/17 15:57, Mathias Kresin wrote:
17.02.2017 11:42, Mauro Mozzarelli:
The BT Home Hub routers
17.02.2017 11:42, Mauro Mozzarelli:
The BT Home Hub routers described in the scenario(s) below are connected
also on the LAN side.
I ran further tests in the first SCENARIO (Red Ethernet as eth0.2)
monitoring the red Ethernet WAN end with wireshark and I saw arp
requests coming from the Red
The BT Home Hub routers described in the scenario(s) below are connected
also on the LAN side.
I ran further tests in the first SCENARIO (Red Ethernet as eth0.2)
monitoring the red Ethernet WAN end with wireshark and I saw arp
requests coming from the Red Ethernet that have both mac address
Mathias,
I have just come across a weird side effect of the following change.
With the patch applied it is no longer possible to communicate via the
red Ethernet between 2 BT Home Hub 5, but communications are fine
between a HH5 and any other device (??).
diff --git
12.02.2017 17:40, Mauro Mozzarelli:
You are correct that the name does not matter, however if we have
routers already configured to associate the xDSL or Ethernet to WAN,
when we flash the new firmware we will have to reconfigure them to
rename the device. This is all good if the routers are
On 12/02/17 15:56, Mathias Kresin wrote:
12.02.2017 15:55, Felix Fietkau:
@Mathias: could you perhaps refactor the commits to put the wan->xwan
rename *after* the ethernet port VLAN change?
I'm also a bit sceptical about the interface rename and would like to
discuss this further, but I think
12.02.2017 15:55, Felix Fietkau:
@Mathias: could you perhaps refactor the commits to put the wan->xwan
rename *after* the ethernet port VLAN change?
I'm also a bit sceptical about the interface rename and would like to
discuss this further, but I think the VLAN change is important enough to
get
On 2017-02-12 15:16, Mauro M. wrote:
> Hello Felix,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
>
> On 11/02/17 21:49, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Hey Mauro,
>> please don't take Mathias' feedback as hostile, it really isn't. His
> Please see the threads on FS#390 and FS#321 there is a pattern.
I don't see
Hello Felix,
Thank you for your comments.
On 11/02/17 21:49, Felix Fietkau wrote:
Hey Mauro,
please don't take Mathias' feedback as hostile, it really isn't. His
Please see the threads on FS#390 and FS#321 there is a pattern.
patch seems to take the same basic approach as yours, so I would
On 2017-02-11 21:53, Mauro M. wrote:
> @Mathias
>
> On this router, that has already a WAN xDSL port, another WAN port is
> not a priority. If one wants to use the Red Ethernet as you intend to,
> one would use a different router that does not have an xDSL WAN.
>
> I do not want to test your
@Mathias
On this router, that has already a WAN xDSL port, another WAN port is
not a priority. If one wants to use the Red Ethernet as you intend to,
one would use a different router that does not have an xDSL WAN.
I do not want to test your staging tree because your analysis is flawed,
you
11.02.2017 18:55, Mauro M.:
This proposed patch applies to BT Home Hub 5 Type A and:
1) it includes configuration for the Red Ethernet port as an additional
"dmz" interface (feature request FS#490)
NAK.
It's a WAN port and not a DMZ port. It should be used by default as WAN
port. If you
This proposed patch applies to BT Home Hub 5 Type A and:
1) it includes configuration for the Red Ethernet port as an additional
"dmz" interface (feature request FS#490)
2) it fixes FS#390 providing the ability to associate port 5 to the main
switch VLAN.
Signed-off-by: Mauro Mozzarelli
16 matches
Mail list logo
