Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:33:57 -0000 (GMT)
From:      asegu@borgtech.ca
To:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Cc:        "Nickolay A. Kritsky" <nkritsky@star-sw.com>
Subject:   Re: FW: Curiosity in IPFW/Freebsd bridge. [more] 802.1q VLAN at  fault?
Message-ID:  <3721.161.53.212.202.1103488437.squirrel@borg.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <721371959296.20041217154130@star-sw.com>
References:  <20041217094937.E4E6054C3@borgtech.ca> <721371959296.20041217154130@star-sw.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ok, the whole discussion to date led to how VLAN traffic wasn't being
registered by IPFW in my system. I think that it'll probably be too late
for a code change to fix my problem, so I'm going to go the route of
changing the network configuration.

I've rebuilt to 4.10 and.. And I had no luck there (IPFW _really_ doesn't
see the traffic now!). On the other hand, I've read about vlan pseudo-dev
and goten myself access to the switch's configuration.

So tomorrow evening I plan on changing the vlan id used to 3, and then in
freebsd, use the following configuration(and I post this to the list to
see if anybody knows that this is going to fail)

fxp1 --> router (uses ID 2)
fxp0 --> switch (uses ID 2, will switch to ID 3)
ifconfig vlan1 vlan 3 vlandev fxp0
ifconfig vlan0 vlan 2 vlandev fxp1

sysctl net.link.ether.bridge_cfg=vlan1,vlan0
sysctl net.link.ether.bridge_ipfw=1


Does anybody think this will allow IPFW to see the packets? or that this
will outright fail?


Thank you everybody,
Andrew



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3721.161.53.212.202.1103488437.squirrel>