Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:47:34 +0100 From: Matthias Schuendehuette <msch@snafu.de> To: Sten Daniel =?iso-8859-1?q?S=F8rsdal?= <sten.daniel.sorsdal@wan.no> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw2 and bridging on 5.2-RELEASE Message-ID: <200401171947.35008.msch@snafu.de> In-Reply-To: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F5D97D8@exchange.wanglobal.net> References: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F5D97D8@exchange.wanglobal.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Friday 16 January 2004 13:46, you wrote: > The man pages says one and up last time i checked, using and > id of 0 has been a reason for many kernel panics, atleast for me. > But of course it has to be actually bridging packets in the first > place to see those. Yes, you're right concerning the man-page. But that was not the reason for my problems. I changed the cluster-IDs but nothing has changed. As I've mentioned before, I have no problems concerning bridging. With 'sh /etc/rc.firewall open', all networking is up 'n running. Therefor I think that ipfw (or myself) has problems. But I don't think that I've made a larger mistake - 'allow icmp any to any' should make pinging work, don't it? > Have you remembered to set vlan0 and vlan1's parent interface into > promiscous mode? Yes, I checked it again, fxp0 and fxp1 *are* in promiscous mode. Seems to be automagic because of the bridging - I did no 'ifconfig' to set the interfaces explicitly into promiscous mode but they are... Anyway - thanks a lot! I'm trying to check this ipfw behaviour with another bridging machine with FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE and ipfw1 next week - perhaps there is any difference, perhaps even not... -- Ciao/BSD - Matthias Matthias Schuendehuette <msch [at] snafu.de>, Berlin (Germany) PGP-Key at <pgp.mit.edu> and <wwwkeys.de.pgp.net> ID: 0xDDFB0A5F
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401171947.35008.msch>