Re: DHCP over vr(4) on bridge(4) through vether(4) no working?
Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> I did a bridge configuration according to the FAQ with bridge0 containing
> athn0, vr1 and vether0. vether0 got the IP address configuration that
> athn0 had before, dhcpd was reconfigured to serve vr0 and vether0 and that
> worked just fine. DHCP over athn0 passes through bridge0 and vether0 to
> dhcpd as well as directly from vr0 to dhcpd.
>
> But DHCP over vr1 through bridge0 and vether0 does not work. I had to
> configure a static address on the access point to get any further.
>
> I know that DHCP over vr0 that dhcpd serves directly works, and I know that
> it works when dhcpd serves athn0 directly, plus it works when dhcpd serves
> athn0 throught bridge0 and vether0.
did you try to add something like this in your pf.conf for "debug" :
set skip on { lo0, vr1, athn0 }
Eric
Re: Large datasize - how to limit physical memory?
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:47:17AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > Raimo Niskanen wrote: > > And the manual page is wrong in claiming that ulimit -m takes effect when > > the system gets low on memory? > > > > So the only memory limit that is enforced is ulimit -d? > > yeah. i'll fix the manual. thanks for noticing. > > > Bummer. > > > > What I guess we (VM tricksters) would really want is MAP_NORESERVE... > > that's not very hard to add. uvm has a concept of maxprot, which is the > maximum protections one can add to a page. userland doesn't really get any > control over this however. there could be a flag that leaves maxprot as none, > and then we wouldn't need to count that as memory. That would be super! We (Erlang VM) currently tries use MAP_NORESERVE (and PROT_NONE) to allocate a big address range and later remap some of it as PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE when memory is needed. The address range is used to be able to quickly identify which kind of memory it is. The current situation when MAP_NORESERVE is defined but ignored is confusing and I hoped that PROT_NONE would be enough to make it behave as MAP_NORESERVE, but to make MAP_NORESERVE work as intended would be much better! A big thanks if MAP_NORESERVE should get implemented! -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
Re: DHCP over vr(4) on bridge(4) through vether(4) no working?
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:07:43AM +0200, Raimo Niskanen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:42:40AM +0200, LÉVAI Dániel wrote: > > Raimo Niskanen @ 2016-10-07T09:46:06 +0200: > > > Hello misc@ > > > > > > I have a home router where it seems that DHCP over vr(4) on bridge(4) > > > through vether(4) does not work. > > > > > [...] > > > Any hints on how to procede? > > > > Just a shot in the dark, but maybe: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=147462832805431&w=2 > > http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20160725144108 > > Nice shot, but a close miss. I have vr0-bridge0-vether0 and no dhclient > running on neither vr0 nor vether0. The client runs on vr2. Also I see > no log entrys in /var/log/daemon from dhcpd about getting a DHCPDISCOVER > and sending a DHCPOFFER, which I get when the request comes in over > athn0-bridge0-vether0... So it is the incoming that does not arrive. I have to back from that statement. Now I am convinced it is the same bug! And it seems to be enough to have a dhclient running on the same machine as the bridge, or on the same interface type. I have dhclient running on vr2 and bridge0 contains vr1, athn0 and vether0. Some more tcpdumping shows that the DHCPDISCOVER comes in on vr1 and is not distributed to any other bridge member. But when a DHCPDISCOVER comes in on athn0 it is distributed to vr1 and vether0. dhcpd listens on vether0 but the reply to DHCPDISCOVER is not delivered through vether0 and the bridge. It shows up on athn0 directly and is not distributed to the other bridge members. So dhcpd and the bridge does some monkey business, possibly assisted by dhclient working on an interface not in the bridge. I think these all concern the same problem: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=147462934705670&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=147291369828477&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=147333147600814&w=2 so the devs are probably working on a solution. My current workaround is to have dhcpd listen to vr0, vr1 and athn0, and give out different address ranges on the different interfaces. -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
Re: DHCP over vr(4) on bridge(4) through vether(4) no working?
On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 02:29:12PM +0200, Eric Huiban wrote:
> Raimo Niskanen wrote:
>
> > I did a bridge configuration according to the FAQ with bridge0 containing
> > athn0, vr1 and vether0. vether0 got the IP address configuration that
> > athn0 had before, dhcpd was reconfigured to serve vr0 and vether0 and that
> > worked just fine. DHCP over athn0 passes through bridge0 and vether0 to
> > dhcpd as well as directly from vr0 to dhcpd.
> >
> > But DHCP over vr1 through bridge0 and vether0 does not work. I had to
> > configure a static address on the access point to get any further.
> >
> > I know that DHCP over vr0 that dhcpd serves directly works, and I know that
> > it works when dhcpd serves athn0 directly, plus it works when dhcpd serves
> > athn0 throught bridge0 and vether0.
>
> did you try to add something like this in your pf.conf for "debug" :
>
> set skip on { lo0, vr1, athn0 }
Thanks for the tip but I think I have figured this out anyway, and other
packets than DHCP packets pass the firewall. Plus vr1 and athn0 are
configured identically (they are both in group 'lan' and neither of them is
mentioned by name; only the group name is used in pf.conf, so there should
not be any difference between them) and DHCP througn athn0 works.
But I will keep the tip in mind for future use.
--
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
Re: OpenBSD 6 + CARP + PFSYNC + vmware esxi 6 - stalled nat connections
Just a plus After performed a ton of test's I bring up debian linux freebsd and Windows . freebsd : with fetch tool no issue using ftp causes the stalled OpenBSD: wget and ftp tool causes connection stalled linux debian: wget works Windows: works I tested the retrieve with http://mirrors.slackware.com/slackware/ slackware-iso/slackware64-14.2-iso/slackware64-14.2-install-dvd.iso Workaround to solve "ifconfig pfsync0 down" was use "no-sync" on nat rule pass out (no-sync) nat-to 10.20.30.40 Thanks 2016-10-08 18:54 GMT-03:00 R0me0 *** : > Hello Misc, > > I kindly would like to ask if anyone already faced something like this: > > I have the follow setup > > VMware 6 ( one physical interface ) > > 2x OpenBSD 6 ( cloned machine) ( using E1000 ) ( was using vmxnet3 ) > > OpenBSD Router running 3 carps ( ext / dmz / lan ) > > Physical Carp interfaces has no IP > > em0 up > em1 up > em2 up > em3 192.168.0.1/30 ( vmware virtual machine port VLAN ) ( tried with > separeted vswitch ) > > pfsync0 up syncdev em3 ( tried using syncpeer ) > > DMZ (carped ) has 4 hosts running OpenBSD 6 > > > ifconfig -g carp carpdemote 20 > > Failover works as expected ( no issue ) > > Issue : OpenBSD'S on DMZ to internet > > ftp -d openbsd.iso ( I have stalled connection ) > > pkg_add -u ( in the middle way connect goes stalled ) > > It just happen when performing NAT > > > OpenBSD CARP Backup > > ifconfig pfsync0 down > > connections stop to be stalled > > This behavior is happening with OpenBSD hosts and http traffic > > > Thanks in advance
Lenovo X1 Yoga Install Problem
Hi all, I'm currently attempting to install OpenBSD 6.0 on a Lenovo X1 Yoga (2016). I'm installing from a flash drive that I've imaged with install60.fs using dd; I've verified the sha256 sums and all seems okay with the image's integrity. It manages to get to the bootloader, but after the boot> prompt it spits out "cannot open hd0a:/etc/random.seed: No such file or directory" then seemingly goes ahead and attempts to boot: "booting hd0a:/6.0/amd64/bsd.rd" Next it prints out what appears to be "entry point at 0x1001000" (the text disappears too quickly for me to be certain) and halts on a black screen. Any ideas on how to proceed? – Jay
Re: OpenBSD vmx driver performance on VMware 5.5 and 6.0
On 10/7/2016 6:41 AM, Henrik Lund Kramshøj wrote: It is stable and works, and we can use both em and vmx driver, but only get around 1.5 - 2.0 Gbit/s I'm still on ESXi 5.1 in the lab and only have one host, but this seemed interesting enough to run some benchmarks. VM host: ESXi 5.1, Dell R610, one port used for VMs minecraft: OpenBSD 6.0, em symon: OpenBSD 6.0, vmx cerberus: OpenBSD 5.8, bnx1, Dell R210-2, one port used for network storage: CentOS 7, E1000e, SuperMicro X8DT6, two ports in LACP librenms: OpenBSD 6.0, vmx Cisco 3750-E switch (no 10 GB used) server client speed notes librenmsminecraft 289 MB/sec librenmsstorage 791 MB/sec storage librenms521 MB/sec start 937, ended 231 storage librenms933 MB/sec storage cerberus925 MB/sec cerberuslibrenms468 MB/sec Start 882, then ~200, then back to ~800 cerberuslibrenms923 MB/sec cerberusstorage 817 MB/sec cerberussymon 925 MB/sec symon cerberus287 MB/sec symon cerberus478 MB/sec Varied ~300 t0 ~700 symon storage 817 MB/sec symon minecraft 867 MB/sec Varied 472 to 1210 minecraft symon 1250 MB/sec In my case, it appears vmx performance varies widely, and em performance is generally good. Let me know if you want any other combinations tested.
