From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 1 15:42:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32CF016A4CE for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:42:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (eva.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.10.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271AB43D1D for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:42:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i61Ff2ek071409 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:41:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from xdivac02@localhost) by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (8.12.11/8.12.5/Submit) id i61Ff26h071408 for current@freebsd.org; Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:41:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 17:41:02 +0200 From: Divacky Roman To: current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040701154102.GA71172@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <20040701135025.GA64383@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20040701143250.GA66234@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <200407011722.42551.max@love2party.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200407011722.42551.max@love2party.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.16 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Subject: Re: strange NAT behaviour X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:42:03 -0000 On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:22:34PM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > On Thursday 01 July 2004 16:32, Divacky Roman wrote: > > I have booted -O universe and it works... so there is definitely some > > optimalization error - is it worth it to catch the bug? I'd say YES! > > I agree. > > > (isnt here even plan for officially supporting -O2?) > > Well, you should provided some more specific explanation how you use this box. > i.e. how do you do NATting (ifpw + natd, ipf, pf or pppd's builtin)? What > interfaces do you employ? What is the MTU of your outgoing path? Moreover > tcpdumps are of interest in order to see why things do fail. Same for > statistics (netstat -ssp {ip, tcp, udp ...}) to learn why the packets are > being dropped. ipfw + natd, natd on vr0 with mtu 1500, iface to internal network is xl0 with mtu 1500 I cannot provide mtu since I have to use that machine (so I wont switch back to -Os) from the nat machine I was able to do all networking so I wouldnt blame any driver, from machine behind nat ping -s 1472 worked so I wouldnt also blame ipfw - it really seemd like fragmenting problem somewhere in natd... btw: ipfw shown me that some packets go to divert socket (where natd is binded) and some to allow rule so I suppose ipfw is working > > thnx for attention > > > > roman > > > > On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:50:25PM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: > > > I have upgraded from CFLAGS=-O ARCH=p2 may 17th current (both kernel > > > and userland) to CFLAGS=-Os (I know its NOT supported) ARCH=athlon-xp > > > 30th June current and strange thing happend > > > > > > The machine in charge is working as a NAT and machines behind that are > > > not able to transfer any packet longer than 1472 bytes. its seems > > > fragmenting is broken but on that nat machine I am able to transfer > > > anything... > > > > > > I dont ask for help (since -Os is unsupported, but I am compiling -O > > > universe now so I might ask for help ;) ) just point it as interesting > > > behaviour... maybe some kind of bug? > > > and YES I have it all set properly > > > > > > roman > > -- > Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org > Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 > http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet