https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238198
--- Comment #13 from dgilb...@eicat.ca --- It doesn't explain the _different_ behaviour between ix0 and re0, but there is one bug I managed to nail myself. I _had_ ix0 (or re0) attached to bridge0 (picking up untagged vlan 1 --- which this switch refuses to tag). Then I had a few other vlans plus vlan 221 (the one we're discussing). Certainly, I have had lots of BSD machines useing the raw ethernet to pick up the management vlan untagged --- but I don't believe I've had a bridge there before. For now, I will use re0 to pick up the untagged vlan (sigh... feels like an engineering waste), but I do understand the complexity here. In a netgraph-like case, you can specify the ethertypes that are taken and left and whatnot --- ifconfig doesn't allow us to express this. I would very much like to be in a discussion of layer 2 semantics, should one occur. Terminology is drastically overloaded and the number of useful combinations is high ... leaving a more flexible solution a clear winner. What I'm saying is that the ability to pick off an untagged vlan 1 on the raw port is very useful with modern gear. I realize this means having a way to specify picking off ethertypes (at least for v4 and v6) and that potential confusion is high ... so accurate abstraction is key. Anyways... far beyond the status of this bug. re0 and ix0 behave differently in this corner case, but you may need to add re0 and/or ix0 to a bridge to replicate it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
