On 8/2/2013 2:44 AM, Joe Moog wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My suspicion would
be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more than 2 ports rather than
the
Joe Moog wrote this message on Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 17:14 -0500:
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> >
> >> Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My suspicion
> >> would be that the problem is in the lagg's
Well, isn't there MAC address reprogramming and such going on when one
enables LAGG on an interface?
-adrian
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-un
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Vogel
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 3:49 PM
To: Joe Moog
Cc: freebsd-net; Ryan Stone
Subject: Re: Intel 4-port ethernet adaptor link aggregation issue
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at
On Aug 1, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Sean Bruno wrote:
>> UPDATE: After additional testing, I'm beginning to suspect the igb driver.
>> With our setup, ifconfig identifies all the ethernet ports as igb(0-5). I
>> configured igb0 with a single static IP address (say, 192.168.1.10), and was
>> able to c
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Joe Moog wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> >
> >> Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My
> suspicion would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more than
On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 17:14 -0500, Joe Moog wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> >
> >> Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My suspicion
> >> would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of mo
On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
>
>> Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My suspicion
>> would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more than 2 ports
>> rather than the driver, especially given th
On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone wrote:
> Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My suspicion
> would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more than 2 ports
> rather than the driver, especially given that it is the igb driver in all
> cases.
Ryan:
We h
Hiya,
I've spent a bit of time over the last week helping chase this stuff
down. A big thanks to Intel and Verisign for chasing down these bugs
and getting a fix into the tree so quickly!
If you use ixgbe on -HEAD or -9 I highly suggest you nab these changes
and give them a good thrashing.
-adr
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Joe Moog wrote:
> We have an iXsystems 1U server (E5) with an Intel 4-port ethernet NIC
> installed, model I350-T4 (manufactured May of 2013). We're trying to bind
> the 4 ports on this NIC together into a single lagg port, connected LACP to
> a distribution switch
We have an iXsystems 1U server (E5) with an Intel 4-port ethernet NIC
installed, model I350-T4 (manufactured May of 2013). We're trying to bind the 4
ports on this NIC together into a single lagg port, connected LACP to a
distribution switch (Cisco 4900-series). We are able to successfully bind
All,
We seem to have discovered a problem that occurs when adding an address (or
alias) to a DOWNed lagg interface. After adding an address, when you try to
bring the interface UP it can't reach the desired networks.
Turns out that the problem occurs because the lagg driver silently passes the
13 matches
Mail list logo
