From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Fri May 31 00:13:13 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D49615AEA75 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAAC7444B for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id D14F815AEA73; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:12 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC96C15AEA72 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 466BF74449 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EC82ACB0 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x4V0DAhg003605 for ; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:10 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x4V0DAs9003600 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:10 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 238198] Traffic through a vm -> bridge(4) -> vlan -> ix(4) does not return Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:10 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: dgilbert@eicat.ca X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable12? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 00:13:13 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D238198 --- Comment #13 from dgilbert@eicat.ca --- It doesn't explain the _different_ behaviour between ix0 and re0, but there= is one bug I managed to nail myself. I _had_ ix0 (or re0) attached to bridge0 (picking up untagged vlan 1 --- wh= ich this switch refuses to tag). Then I had a few other vlans plus vlan 221 (t= he one we're discussing). Certainly, I have had lots of BSD machines useing t= he raw ethernet to pick up the management vlan untagged --- but I don't believe I've had a bridge there before. For now, I will use re0 to pick up the untagged vlan (sigh... feels like an engineering waste), but I do understand the complexity here. In a netgraph-like case, you can specify the ethertypes that are taken and left = and whatnot --- ifconfig doesn't allow us to express this. I would very much like to be in a discussion of layer 2 semantics, should o= ne occur. Terminology is drastically overloaded and the number of useful combinations is high ... leaving a more flexible solution a clear winner. What I'm saying is that the ability to pick off an untagged vlan 1 on the r= aw port is very useful with modern gear. I realize this means having a way to specify picking off ethertypes (at least for v4 and v6) and that potential confusion is high ... so accurate abstraction is key. Anyways... far beyond the status of this bug. re0 and ix0 behave different= ly in this corner case, but you may need to add re0 and/or ix0 to a bridge to replicate it. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=