On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:12:31AM +0300, noname wrote: n> freebsd 5.4 stable. xl0 is connected via ng_bridge to ngeth0 in this way: n> n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ifconfig xl0 up n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ngctl mkpeer . eiface hook ether n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ifconfig ngeth0 up n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ngctl mkpeer xl0: bridge lower link0 n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ngctl name xl0:lower mybridge n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ngctl connect ngeth0: mybridge: lower link1 n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ngctl connect ngeth0: mybridge: upper link2 n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ngctl msg xl0: setautosrc 0 n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ngctl msg xl0: setpromisc 1 n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# ifconfig ngeth0 ether 00:12:12:12:12:12 n> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~]# dhclient ngeth0 n> n> using tcpdump I can see dhcp request leaving from ngeth0, passing n> through xl0, dhcp reply comes back through xl0 but it doesn't reach n> ngeth0. Why? n> n> If I give ip-address with ifconfig, everything works fine. Also n> getting ip with dhcp to xl0, without touching netgraph works fine. Any n> clues?
Do not use ngeth0: node. This is a ng_ether node, attached to Ethernet interface created by your ng_eiface. After your second command you have created ng_eiface node, and it is left unnamed. Then you use not correct node, but its ng_ether fantom. Probably we should add a protection to avoid ng_ether nodes autocreate theirselves attached to ng_eiface nodes. This is useless and confuses people. Julian, what do you think? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
