From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 9 01:43:24 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65B25281 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 01:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shell1.rawbw.com (shell1.rawbw.com [198.144.192.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA0CA32 for ; Thu, 9 Apr 2015 01:43:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from yuri.doctorlan.com (c-50-184-63-128.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.184.63.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by shell1.rawbw.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t391hMZ0099643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2015 18:43:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yuri@rawbw.com) X-Authentication-Warning: shell1.rawbw.com: Host c-50-184-63-128.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.184.63.128] claimed to be yuri.doctorlan.com Message-ID: <5525D939.4030506@rawbw.com> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:43:21 -0700 From: Yuri User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Howie , "net@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Socket bound to 0.0.0.0 never receives broadcasts with non-zero IP source address References: <55248957.60109@rawbw.com> <878ue2n6lu.fsf@corbe.net> <55259BC7.6040502@rawbw.com> <5525AEE4.3030400@rawbw.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 01:43:24 -0000 On 04/08/2015 16:07, John Howie wrote: > Have you tried using a static IP address for the host and VM, and > disabling DHCP? The DHCP client will bind to and use 0.0.0.0 to get an IP > address. The SO_REUSEADDR rule is that every tuple (proto, src ip, src > port, dst ip, dst prt) must be unique. I am wondering if that is where > your problem lies. There might be something that is shortcutting the > uniqueness of the tuple and just focusing on IP addresses. I would > validate that for you but I am at 35000¹ right now... > Hi John, I apologize, I actually did have ipfw rules set, and ipfw is the culprit. Yuri