[lwip-users] Two ethernet port with one mac address

2019-02-26 Thread vrnud
Hi, I am new to lwip. basic: 1) I have two ethernt port.(external word interface) 2) Only one ip address is assigned to both the port. 3) RMII interface is used.(3rd port which is going to controller). Set up: 1) Both ports are connected to external ethernet switch. 2) PC is connected to ethernet

Re: [lwip-users] Throughput benchmark question - nasty pauses

2019-02-26 Thread Dave Nadler
I figured out how to get the wireshark trace, but how to get the wireshark GUI to output the summary below in text baffles me, hope the pic is OK: Everything is going swimmingly until 4316. I don't understand the meaning of "previous segment not captured" here - something got dropped. And then

Re: [lwip-users] lwIP trouble

2019-02-26 Thread Simon Goldschmidt
On 26.02.2019 22:07, Slava Zilberfayn wrote: Hello all, I've done some more testing with tcpecho example. When I set chunk size to be less than the size of the tcpecho packets, I get exactly the same failure during the second call to netconn_write. When the packet size small than ch

Re: [lwip-users] lwIP trouble

2019-02-26 Thread Slava Zilberfayn
Hello all, I've done some more testing with tcpecho example. When I set chunk size to be less than the size of the tcpecho packets, I get exactly the same failure during the second call to netconn_write. When the packet size small than chunk size it crashes fairly quickly. For example

Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls

2019-02-26 Thread Simon Goldschmidt
On 26.02.2019 17:15, Giuseppe Modugno wrote: Il 26/02/2019 09:58, Simon Goldschmidt ha scritto: Giuseppe Modugno wrote: [snip] No. TCP_WND is not something you have allocated. It's the amount of data the remote host can send before we reopen the window. In the altcp TLS case, the data is re

Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls

2019-02-26 Thread Giuseppe Modugno
Il 26/02/2019 09:58, Simon Goldschmidt ha scritto: Giuseppe Modugno wrote: An: lwip-users@nongnu.org Betreff: Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls Il 25/02/2019 20:19, goldsi...@gmx.de ha scritto: Am 22.02.2019 um 10:24 schrieb Giuseppe Modugno: Il 22/02/2019 09:43, Simon Goldschmidt ha scritto

[lwip-users] lwIP trouble

2019-02-26 Thread Slava Zilberfayn
Hello Lwip-users, I have a networked device that was running lwIP 1.4.1 in the past, but now I'm upgrading it to 2.1.0. The reason for the upgrade is that we have a bit of instability. I have previously identified two bugs in 1.4.1 that we were hitting, and applied fixes. But since we

Re: [lwip-users] Debugging a hang in an lwIP-based application

2019-02-26 Thread tomek wilkxt
> While we're at it, I have one more question. After the fix described > above the application is running much much better and the connection > looks a lot more stable/reliable. But I do still see some rare > occurrences of TCP retransmissions and duplicated ACKs in Wireshark > (like maybe once/twi

Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls

2019-02-26 Thread Simon Goldschmidt
Giuseppe Modugno wrote: > An: lwip-users@nongnu.org > Betreff: Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls > > Il 25/02/2019 20:19, goldsi...@gmx.de ha scritto: > > Am 22.02.2019 um 10:24 schrieb Giuseppe Modugno: > >> Il 22/02/2019 09:43, Simon Goldschmidt ha scritto: > > > > [snip] > > > Is this warn

Re: [lwip-users] altcp_tls_mbedtls

2019-02-26 Thread Giuseppe Modugno
Il 25/02/2019 20:19, goldsi...@gmx.de ha scritto: Am 22.02.2019 um 10:24 schrieb Giuseppe Modugno: Il 22/02/2019 09:43, Simon Goldschmidt ha scritto: [snip] Is this warning correct? I think TCP_WND should be compared with MBEDTLS_SSL_IN_CONTENT_LEN or MBEDTLS_SSL_OUT_CONTENT_LEN or the maxi

Re: [lwip-users] Again confused about tcp_recved() and pbuf_free()

2019-02-26 Thread Simon Goldschmidt
Giuseppe Modugno wrote: [..] > >> What are the situations when it should be better to not call > >> tcp_recved() in recv() callback()? Here the application has the > >> received data, can process and free the pbufs or can avoid freeing > >> the pbufs to wait for additional data. In both cases I

Re: [lwip-users] Again confused about tcp_recved() and pbuf_free()

2019-02-26 Thread Giuseppe Modugno
Il 25/02/2019 20:23, goldsi...@gmx.de ha scritto: Am 23.02.2019 um 10:20 schrieb Giuseppe Modugno: I know, this is a hot topic and many times this was explaied in the list and in doc/rawapi.txt, however now I'm in trouble understanding this. tcp_recved() is related to the TCP window size of t

Re: [lwip-users] Using LWIP with PPP and NAT

2019-02-26 Thread Ajay Bhargav
> I don't know @BernardXiong or @hichard, but the NAT code is clearly marked > as originating 2009 from Christian Walter. He was the one uploading this > code to our bugtracker in 2009, without the right to do so, obviously. > > I ended up deleting these files from the bugtracker, but it seems they

Re: [lwip-users] Using LWIP with PPP and NAT

2019-02-26 Thread Simon Goldschmidt
Ajay Bhargav wrote: > An: "Mailing list for lwIP users" > Betreff: Re: [lwip-users] Using LWIP with PPP and NAT > > > That ones seems pretty inactive? Also, they seem to have a mixed license > > where the NAT part seems to be GPL, while lwIP has a BSD license. > > > > In addition to that, the ip4_