Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 07:37:28 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 282673] ipfw tags are lost while transit via if_epair Message-ID: <bug-282673-227-SZCk3Asvcf@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-282673-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=282673 Zhenlei Huang <zlei@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zlei@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #6 from Zhenlei Huang <zlei@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Mark Johnston from comment #4) > Would it make sense for epair to preserve tags if the endpoints belong to the same VNET? Technically possible, and looks reasonable. > That's a slightly odd configuration, but the reasoning for stripping tags doesn't apply there. While I suggested bridge + epair + vlan configuration to intercept tagged frames ( as in the following digram) in a bug report [1] about bridge. It is clear and promising. tap0 --- --- epair0b.5 em0 --- bridge0 --- epair0a --- epair0b --- epair0b.10 igc0 --- --- epair0b.20 I'm not sure if that is commonly deployed but I think it is not an odd configration but rather a **workaround** / **solution** . I do not use IPFW but it seems the man doc > Tags are kept with the packet everywhere within the kernel, but are lost when > the packet leaves the kernel is outdated. I think preserving tags within the same VNET is applicable. 1. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240106#c31 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-282673-227-SZCk3Asvcf>