From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 2 06:34:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8788BD2 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:34:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hoomanfazaeli@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF58526B2 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 06:34:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id jh10so318127pab.31 for ; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:34:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+OTQW5hFmOeo7pxGW4mFU/r+RP0ip1M5w0oTPQIDVmE=; b=ThiZecF86hVlh9OsnkgTmbMvsDx4jF3nQPhujMTolwA+WiK9yVMNMdluOKOiVCa8Cb 3t9Wjd0/3XKyrUp2envuo2fLKSsff5B+n+2Ic1cfUoHWSCIzDQ1AMRLDj53805m+Jebj iw6D3BufnKkco7LXcO5w+skuYmMRMKbdIRMYaArN1lk+364+nnlIBnlERU821k2z00A4 KePwpG6m8nv5hFEvfw4h/KG/gL3UKhQVbjQrEEKufpsqjZ685hayTyNVh6nzlOxwzIO5 b/Qb3H2+2oVySAy1xc8mzPf1u8NCghc2YfvFWbsleQizIqwzsqPu7AUKV7R4d2lAvl5n YVuw== X-Received: by 10.69.0.129 with SMTP id ay1mr6065847pbd.41.1375425261374; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:34:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.30] ([2.176.236.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tr10sm8295644pbc.22.2013.08.01.23.34.18 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51FB52F0.3050004@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 11:04:24 +0430 From: Hooman Fazaeli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Moog Subject: Re: Intel 4-port ethernet adaptor link aggregation issue References: <2A0C085A-1AAF-42D7-867B-6CDD1143B4AC@ebureau.com> In-Reply-To: <2A0C085A-1AAF-42D7-867B-6CDD1143B4AC@ebureau.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net 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: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 06:34:22 -0000 On 8/2/2013 2:44 AM, Joe Moog wrote: > On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Joe Moog wrote: > >> On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Ryan Stone wrote: >> >>> Have you tried using only two ports, but both from the NIC? My suspicion would be that the problem is in the lagg's handling of more than 2 ports rather than the driver, especially given that it is the igb driver in all cases. >> Ryan: >> >> We have done this successfully with two ports on the NIC, on another hardware-identical host. That said, it is entirely possible that this is a shortcoming of lagg. >> >> Can you think of any sort of workaround? Our desired implementation really requires the inclusion of all 4 ports in the lagg. Failing this we're looking at the likelihood of 10G ethernet, but with that comes significant overhead, both cost and administration (before anybody tries to force the cost debate, remember that there are 10G router modules and 10G-capable distribution switches involved, never mind the cabling and SFPs -- it's not just a $600 10G card for the host). I'd like to defer that requirement as long as possible. 4 aggregated gig ports would serve us perfectly well for the near-term. >> >> Thanks >> >> Joe > 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. > > If there is anything else I could try that would be useful to help identify where the issue may reside, please let me know. > > Thanks > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > Assign IP addresses from __different__ subnets to the four NIC ports and re-test. (e.g., 192.168.0.10/24, 1.10/24, 2.10/24, 3.10/24). -- Best regards. Hooman Fazaeli