Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:59:06 -0500 From: Joe Moog <joemoog@ebureau.com> To: sbruno@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Intel 4-port ethernet adaptor link aggregation issue Message-ID: <B9C9A9C0-100A-4727-A60E-731B0521CDA4@ebureau.com> In-Reply-To: <1375396564.1481.37.camel@localhost> References: <B966242F-A52D-43F7-A001-99942D53339E@ebureau.com> <CAFMmRNwAuwaGLSQ4P-y=Vzh63jpGXoDRCOXbxeWPoVb3ucy0kQ@mail.gmail.com> <D080FEC3-1935-4510-8CD1-E39B681B2785@ebureau.com> <2A0C085A-1AAF-42D7-867B-6CDD1143B4AC@ebureau.com> <1375396564.1481.37.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 1, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Sean Bruno <sean_bruno@yahoo.com> wrote: >> UPDATE: After additional testing, I'm beginning to suspect the igb = driver. With our setup, ifconfig identifies all the ethernet ports as = igb(0-5). I configured igb0 with a single static IP address (say, = 192.168.1.10), and was able to connect to the host administratively. = While connected, I enabled another port as a second standalone port, = again with a unique address (say, 192.168.1.20), and was able to access = the host via that interface as well. The problem arises when we attempt = to similarly add a third interface to the mix -- and it doesn't seem to = matter what interface(s) we use, or in what order we activate them. = Always on the third interface, that third interface fails to respond = despite showing "active" both in ifconfig and on the switch. >>=20 >> If there is anything else I could try that would be useful to help = identify where the issue may reside, please let me know. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Joe >=20 > Your test seems to indicate that the *first* port on the quad-port = card > is causing you issues as the on-board interfaces igb0/1 are working > fine. >=20 > Can you bring up *any* ports on the quad-port card? >=20 > Are you sure that device enumeration is correct in the host o/s and = that > port 1 on the aud-port card is really igb2, port 2 is igb3, etc ? >=20 > Sean Sean: It is not always the first port on the NIC. The host maps the ports the = same way every time, in the same order, so this doesn't appear to be of = any consequence. We can enable any one port on the host (on-board or = NIC), and then enable another (again, on-board or NIC), and both appear = to function as expected. The problem arises when we enable a third port = -- any port, in any order. That third port always fails to respond = appropriately in our setup, despite appearing to be active according to = ifconfig and the interface status on the switch. Any port activated = after the second one fails to respond to any sort of network activity. Is it possible there is a sysctl option that is restricting igb from = allowing more than two active ethernet ports? Thanks Joe=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B9C9A9C0-100A-4727-A60E-731B0521CDA4>