Maxim Konovalov wrote:
[ CC: trimmed ]
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, 14:52-0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
[...]
If you get bridge to send/receive packets to/from vlan interfaces
attached to them, I'll be forever grateful.
I've been trying to configure a setup where a firewall is connected to
redundant swi
Daniel C. Sobral writes:
| Err... ... I don't know what a vmnet is, and "apropos" told me no
| tales. :-)
man tap
| Alas, I tried netgraph to. It suffers from about the same problem.
| Packets on the bridge do not go to the vlan, and packets from the vlan
| do not get sent to the bridged i
Doug Ambrisko wrote:
|
...
| The test I'm doing is the following:
|
| kldload bridge
| sysctl net.link.ether.bridge=1
| sysctl net.link.ether.bridge_cfg="fxp1 fxp3"
| ifconfig fxp1 up
| ifconfig fxp3 up
| ifconfig vlan0 create
| ifconfig vlan0 vlan 999 vlandev fxp1
| ifconfig vlan0 200.220.254.19
Daniel C. Sobral writes:
| Doug Ambrisko wrote:
| > Daniel C. Sobral writes:
| > | If you get bridge to send/receive packets to/from vlan interfaces
| > | attached to them, I'll be forever grateful.
| > |
| > | I've been trying to configure a setup where a firewall is connected to
| > | redundan
Doug Ambrisko wrote:
Daniel C. Sobral writes:
| If you get bridge to send/receive packets to/from vlan interfaces
| attached to them, I'll be forever grateful.
|
| I've been trying to configure a setup where a firewall is connected to
| redundant switches, but no solution I found could handle th
Maxim Konovalov wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, 09:21-0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Maxim Konovalov wrote:
[ CC: trimmed ]
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, 14:52-0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
[...]
If you get bridge to send/receive packets to/from vlan interfaces
attached to them, I'll be forever grateful.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, 09:21-0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> > [ CC: trimmed ]
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, 14:52-0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>If you get bridge to send/receive packets to/from vlan interfaces
> >>attached to them, I'll be forever grate
Maxim Konovalov wrote:
[ CC: trimmed ]
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, 14:52-0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
[...]
If you get bridge to send/receive packets to/from vlan interfaces
attached to them, I'll be forever grateful.
I've been trying to configure a setup where a firewall is connected to
redundant swi
[ CC: trimmed ]
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, 14:52-0300, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
[...]
> If you get bridge to send/receive packets to/from vlan interfaces
> attached to them, I'll be forever grateful.
>
> I've been trying to configure a setup where a firewall is connected to
> redundant switches, but no
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
that implements the pseudo-device approach?
Julian Elischer wrote:
FreeBSD has both.
If you use netgraph bridging then you are using a more
"link level device" like approach.
On Wed,
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
> >>>that implements the pseudo-d
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:23:42AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, Sam Leffler wrote:
>
> > One other minor change: I moved the printf "BRIDGE 020214 loaded" under
> > bootverbose. Can anyone tell me what 020214 means?
yes, it is a timestamp -- just to get an idea on whe
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
that implements the pseudo-device approach?
FreeBSD has both.
If you use netgraph bridging then you are using a mo
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
> > I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
> > that implements the pseudo-device approach?
FreeBSD has both.
If you use netgraph bridging then you are using a more
"link
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
> I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
> that implements the pseudo-device approach?
I had an older set of patches (4.x?) that implemented a bridgeX interface
that saw all of the packets bridged by the bridge. However,
Lars Eggert wrote:
Sam Leffler wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/bridge.patch
This patch adds locking and also overhauls the bridge code some to do
things like replace explicit numbers with #defines and cleanup the
debugging code.
This is only mildly related, but maybe someone feels like loo
Sam Leffler wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/bridge.patch
This patch adds locking and also overhauls the bridge code some to do
things like replace explicit numbers with #defines and cleanup the
debugging code.
This is only mildly related, but maybe someone feels like looking at
this in addi
If memory serves me right, Sam Leffler wrote:
> One other minor change: I moved the printf "BRIDGE 020214 loaded" under
> bootverbose. Can anyone tell me what 020214 means?
I recently started using bridge(4) functionality and was wondering
about this too. Based on the output of "cvs annotate"
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/bridge.patch
This patch adds locking and also overhauls the bridge code some to do
things like replace explicit numbers with #defines and cleanup the
debugging code. I also restructured the forwarding code to avoid grabbing
the ifnet lock if possible and optimized t
19 matches
Mail list logo
