Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:30:27 +0300 From: Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass9573@gmx.com> To: Dan D Niles <dan@more.net> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Extended VLAN? Message-ID: <4BC8ACC3.8010300@gmx.com> In-Reply-To: <1271259505.9196.26.camel@jane.spg.more.net> References: <1271196264.10895.33.camel@jane.spg.more.net> <g2wd36406631004140106ob10bf223r364655ac1906d1aa@mail.gmail.com> <1271257872.9196.6.camel@jane.spg.more.net> <1271259505.9196.26.camel@jane.spg.more.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/14/2010 6:38 PM, Dan D Niles wrote: > OK, this is weird. I ran wireshark on the destination side (across the > bridge). When I try to ping the destination router, the arp request is > sent across the bridge, but there is no arp reply. > > It seems like the destination router is not responding to arp requests > that come in over the bridge. Since the router knows that 10.10.0.0/16 is attached to the em3 interface it sends the ARP reply over that interface and not the gif0 one. That ARP reply does not goes to the other side of the bridge as it should. I don't know the reasoning behind it but I have heard it in the past. Perhaps assigning IP addresses to member interfaces of a bridge is probably bad practice (at least regarding the particular implementation). HTH, Nikos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4BC8ACC3.8010300>