Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:44:08 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        jail@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 240106] VNET issue with ARP and routing sockets in jails
Message-ID:  <bug-240106-29815-bHZmMpHrXe@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-240106-29815@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-240106-29815@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D240106

--- Comment #29 from Zhenlei Huang <zlei@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to kvs from comment #28)
I think your should open a separate PR, as you have different setup with th=
at
of the original PR by John Westbrook. He has SR-IOV configured.

I managed to repeat with cxl / lagg / bridge / epair (vnet) on 13.2-RC3. Al=
so
tried re / ue .

> tcpdump -i cc0:
> 10:00:17.981050 ARP, Request who-has 10.20.20.254 tell 10.20.20.77, lengt=
h 42

> tcpdump -i cc1:
> 10:00:17.981041 ARP, Request who-has 10.20.20.254 tell 10.20.20.77, lengt=
h 28
> 10:00:17.981282 ARP, Reply 10.20.20.254 is-at 02:11:22:33:44:55 (oui Unkn=
own), length 46

You might want to tcpdump on cc0 with `--direction=3Din` to filter ARP requ=
est
send out from cc1 and then come back to cc0 (the switch forwarded it).

The IF_BRIDGE(4) seems to hide some thing to protect itself get confused.

If you can confirm, then please config you switch properly. The two ports c=
c0
and cc1 connected should be in same link aggregation group.

I'll see if I can teach IF_BRIDGE(4) to emit warnings in case it get ARP
request packet sent from it self.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-240106-29815-bHZmMpHrXe>