PXE Boot vmware 8.x fails after pxeboot.
I have had diskless FreeBSD machines before. I started this project with an eye to booting iscsi disks, but there seems to be no way to communicate the root disk path (and parameters) to FreeBSD --- something that might be solvable, but I need practical at the moment. So I fall back on NFS diskless with PXE boot (I may have used etherboot in the past --- it's been awhile). Anyways... this attempt is made with FreeBSD-9.0-RELEASE binaries. In my network, 192.168.0.1 is the DHCP and TFTP server. 192.168.0.52 is my NFS server. The new vmware guest is bridged and gets 192.168.0.135. It successfully gets 'pxeboot' onto the vmware guest --- pxeboot prints it's banner. Then the only network traffic I observe is DHCP Discover (vmware, presumably the pxeboot binary) followed by DHCP Offer (192.168.0.1 again) and this repeats. Now the dhcp offer gives a root path of "192.168.0.52:/vr/diskless/hit" ... and I've tried it with and without a trailing slash. Obviously this is something within the pxeboot's binary as no attempt to make the nfs mount occurs. ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [nfe] DHCP failure on 8-stable
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:40:44AM -0400, enoch wrote: > On 03/30/2012 19:38, YongHyeon PYUN wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:01:52AM -0400, enoch wrote: > >> Recently it became extremely difficult to pass the DHCP discovery step > >> on boot. Now I am using the buggy [nve] instead. > >> > >> Can anyone help? > >> > > > > Did you set synchronous_dhclient option in rc.conf? > > > > Yes: ifconfig_nfe0="SYNCDHCP" > > I guess [nfe] is undergoing gradual devel changes of some sort as before > it had some chance of reporting "empty headers" on initial ifconfig and > refusing to work. Sorry, I should have reported when encountering the > first problems rather than solve by reboot. Would you show me the output of both dmesg(nfe(4) and its PHY only) and 'sysctl dev.nfe.0.stats'? It would be also helpful to know whether nfe(4) still sees incoming traffic. Does assigning static IP work? > > In any case, the alternative [nve] should be marked "dangerous" as under > heavy load it tends to crash the system. > > Thanks, Enoch. > > >> > >> uname -a > >> > >> FreeBSD dome 8.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #7: Thu Mar 29 > >> 14:37:00 EDT 2012 root@dome:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DOME amd64 > >> > >> nfe0 fails at DHCPDISCOVER. > >> > >> ifconfig: > >> > >> nfe0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 > >>options=82008 > >>ether 00:1f:bc:00:19:dc > >>inet 0.0.0.0 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 255.255.255.255 > >>media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) > >>status: active > >> > >> lspci: > >> > >> 00:14.0 Bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP51 Ethernet Controller (rev a3) Because there are several MCP51 variants, "pciconf -lcbv" is more more preferred one. ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
FreeBSD on/for switches/routers
Maybe people are doing things in this area... Just links. http://openvswitch.org/ http://www.openflow.org/ http://www.xorp.org/ http://pica8.com/ https://prontosystems.wordpress.com/ ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: kern/166501: [net] FreeBSD 9.0 generates incorrect SEC/ACK numbers under load
Old Synopsis: FreeBSD 9.0 generates incorrect SEC/ACK numbers under load New Synopsis: [net] FreeBSD 9.0 generates incorrect SEC/ACK numbers under load Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net Responsible-Changed-By: linimon Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Apr 2 06:13:22 UTC 2012 Responsible-Changed-Why: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=166501 ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: kern/166550: [netinet] [patch] Some log lines about arp do not include the new-line
Old Synopsis: [patch] Some log lines about arp do not include the new-line New Synopsis: [netinet] [patch] Some log lines about arp do not include the new-line Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net Responsible-Changed-By: linimon Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Apr 2 06:25:24 UTC 2012 Responsible-Changed-Why: Over to maintainer(s). http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=166550 ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: 6rd status
Op 29-3-2012 16:44, Seth Mos schreef: Hi, I've been trying to use the srd device patch from Masakazu-san from here. http://bougaidenpa.org/masakazu/archives/54 Only to reply to myself here, I've not seen response yet. I've now also tested the patched stf interface from hrs@. I tried getting it online using the 6rd prefix from either ATT or SwissCom but neither establishes 2 way comms. I see packets going out onto the wire proto 41 to the 6rd relay. And if I ping the IPv6 address from a remote end I see proto 41 traffic arriving in on the external interface from the 6rd relay. I never seem to be able to establish 2 way communications. e.g. Ping/dns etc. Pcaps here: http://iserv.nl/files/pfsense/6rd.pcap http://iserv.nl/files/pfsense/6rd-2.pcap Note that both the SwissCom and ATT use a /28 prefix. I am not sure if the patch takes that into account. I see that 6rd prefix lengths over 32 bits are not supported either way, which is a shame because there are actively people rolling that out. The pcaps do seem to indicate it takes the /28 prefix into account, but I'm not sure from reading the code. Can anybody see any light at the end of this (6rd) tunnel? Kind regards, Seth Mos After walking through the configure steps and configuring a default route I get a network unreachable. http://www.pastie.org/private/j6ufhloh2kqesznee6y8na [2.1-DEVELOPMENT][root@pfsense.localdomain]/root(6): ping6 -c1 ipv6.google.com PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2a02:1205:25ea:19b0:: --> 2a00:1450:400c:c01::67 ping6: sendmsg: Network is unreachable ping6: wrote ipv6.l.google.com 16 chars, ret=-1 --- ipv6.l.google.com ping6 statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss [2.1-DEVELOPMENT][root@pfsense.localdomain]/root(7): Any ideas on where to look? Kind regards, Seth ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
