https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
Eugene Grosbein changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|n...@freebsd.org |bry...@freebsd.org
--- Comment
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #15 from Eugene Grosbein ---
FreeBSD's vtnet(4) driver upto 12.3 version implements checksum offload for
transmit path ONLY.
For receive path, it blindly assumes that ALL traffic comes from another
virtual machine running on sa
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #14 from Jorge Schrauwen ---
(In reply to Vincenzo Maffione from comment #13)
That's good to know, which probably means eventually more people will hit the
bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #13 from Vincenzo Maffione ---
(In reply to Jorge Schrauwen from comment #11)
I see.
For your information on freebsd-current now bhyve supports the offloads when
the netmap(4) VALE(4) backend is used (instead of TAP).
--
You a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #12 from Vincenzo Maffione ---
(In reply to mike from comment #10)
Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm describing.
We need to ask freebsd-net folks to ask for suggestions, e.g. a way to append
more metadata to the mbuf.
--
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #11 from Jorge Schrauwen ---
(In reply to Vincenzo Maffione from comment #9)
I am using bhyve, but on an illumos host system. On illumos bhyve does support
this offloading.
I was talking about this with Tom Jones at FOSDEM and
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
m...@sentex.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@sentex.net
--- Comment #10 f
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
Vincenzo Maffione changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmaffi...@freebsd.org
--- Comm
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #8 from Jorge Schrauwen ---
Oops, I was pertty sure I did update this with the ipf results. But guess I did
not.
I could not get ipf to work either, turns out it was similar to the native
firewall on illumos (where I was runnin
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
Eugene Grosbein changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |Open
--- Comment #7 from Eugene
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.freebsd.org/bu
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #6 from Jorge Schrauwen ---
So for ipf it's https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/firewalls-ipf.html right?
I'm a bit busy but with the long holiday weekend I might have a few hours to
try and replicate this with ipf.
--
You ar
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #5 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #4)
I do not know, never used pfnat.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #4 from Kristof Provost ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #2)
Right, that makes sense, and I keep forgetting that about ipfw.
Does ipf have the same limitation? I'd quite like to work out if the problem is
in vtnet
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
--- Comment #3 from Jorge Schrauwen ---
Good to know about ipfw, I was discussing this with kp and he suggested to try
it with a different firewall to confirm or rule out pf nat issues.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
Eugene Grosbein changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eu...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #2
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235607
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|b...@freebsd.org|n...@freebsd.org
--
You are receiv
17 matches
Mail list logo
