From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 14 12:27:16 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA18106566B for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:27:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.188]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE6EE8FC28 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:27:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g13so2609243rvb.43 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:27:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=laXEyYDdZKqHGohMDCW0No3iW8ktN7cF5/pU96ZjIU8=; b=sKmlu+ZWJq5vSwqlIcRc30GxpcJWqTaLe077r/phVCcziZz/VExNhTSx52yw0JArSYwZogPdnAbAF84DYRv1eXxbVqbk8peJbdmNZ9MNwLsMQugWTlYvcsQpn9pp1uxTkdTQjXIUtHnzuy+7kAU0klCz0P/bwbNN6m5xI5FKgac= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=k9G7E1JXT0P4kB46+Ti9JGCGcARJxZedFq3qi9SuIDNonFkAo8S6tcxEMIlrXQVklfPiT7r5NOePeTA3MtCq2c00/TA+cR4f0WfFyTBhxr5yDsw3jD03mvMbZdR2tSedOIM8fJNhLGENL3x3tsRne9apCghjdNjTlvHx7Qj55/0= Received: by 10.141.87.13 with SMTP id p13mr6446844rvl.55.1205497636020; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr ( [211.53.35.84]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm21124612wrl.12.2008.03.14.05.27.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (localhost.cdnetworks.co.kr [127.0.0.1]) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id m2ECR9lt024898 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:27:09 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: (from yongari@localhost) by michelle.cdnetworks.co.kr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id m2ECR8S2024897; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:27:08 +0900 (KST) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:27:08 +0900 From: Pyun YongHyeon To: Giulio Ferro Message-ID: <20080314122708.GG22788@cdnetworks.co.kr> References: <47D7C34E.8060805@zirakzigil.org> <47D817D2.9010306@errno.com> <47D8499A.5070605@zirakzigil.org> <20080313033029.GF16972@cdnetworks.co.kr> <47D92F9D.4070701@zirakzigil.org> <20080314001704.GA22788@cdnetworks.co.kr> <47DA4DCD.6050304@zirakzigil.org> <20080314101555.GF22788@cdnetworks.co.kr> <47DA682E.9010504@zirakzigil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47DA682E.9010504@zirakzigil.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Andrew Thompson , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VLAN trunking and fragmentation X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:27:17 -0000 On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:57:34PM +0100, Giulio Ferro wrote: > Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > No packet reached the other PC. > > > >Ok, then try disabling hardware VLAN tagging. > >(#ifconfig re0 -vlanhwtag) > > > > > That's it! > Now seems to work properly, the problem then is with hardware tagging. > > My question now is: can I use vlans without htag in a complex system with > heavy traffic without a significant performance loss? If not, how much Using available hardware assitance is almost always better than software approach. Disabling VLAN hardware assistance also disables checksum offload on VLAN interface so it may hurt VLAN performance a lot. > will it > take to fix the issue with the driver? > This hardware really make me crazy. There had been many attempts to fix checksum offload related issues. But it seems that several users still suffer from bad checksum or VLAN issues. So I guess the root cause of hardware bug was not yet known. This means that previous patch to work around hardware bug is not complete. Hmm, I'm not sure but it could be related with padding. What makes me wonder is why the first packet of fragmented packet does not show up on destination host. I guess the second packet of fragmented packet may be composed of single mbuf. From these information I will experiment possible combination of work around in next week. I'll let you know when I have a code. > Thanks for your answer. > -- Regards, Pyun YongHyeon