From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 1 22:59:09 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611C979D; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 22:59:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joemoog@ebureau.com) Received: from internet06.ebureau.com (internet06.ebureau.com [65.127.24.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28DC42FAA; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 22:59:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by internet06.ebureau.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F21B3744821; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:59:08 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ebureau.com Received: from internet06.ebureau.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (internet06.ebureau.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FhhfQLvU6FQz; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:59:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from nail.office.ebureau.com (nail.office.ebureau.com [10.10.20.23]) by internet06.ebureau.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 727093744809; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:59:07 -0500 (CDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1786.1\)) Subject: Re: Intel 4-port ethernet adaptor link aggregation issue From: Joe Moog In-Reply-To: <1375396564.1481.37.camel@localhost> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:59:06 -0500 Message-Id: References: <2A0C085A-1AAF-42D7-867B-6CDD1143B4AC@ebureau.com> <1375396564.1481.37.camel@localhost> To: sbruno@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1786.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: freebsd-net , Ryan Stone X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 01 Aug 2013 22:59:09 -0000 On Aug 1, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Sean Bruno 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=