From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 9 21:17:23 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1169347F for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:17:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B1A62F2 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 21:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n3so8542832wiv.4 for ; Sun, 09 Nov 2014 13:17:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=i+5MSaKXt3tUSYV9PNxnmsiCVIR5LfZ9LjOmkXgqlYk=; b=IXpOxT1Ls2Rh/Kou9Xl/J+MZEcYBSq9djKbOZjAHdPCVjp1Tmt0iyCDltFpnYgZUq4 y2OkTu8ZBVyxGjgDtbkyhOmWsaCDAJZm8lvk2Cy1IgJb3xfCzlzDhhRFy03IPyNmGEJ0 YQSsKtP2+oWP6JRCUcH5X0j9U0T2QA3eYhOU7l5NA83IzkC+qihEomRZRmBM9iT3EoWK uSkuFU9LsZG2iyPG3GQLdPU8OPt2MHMpmNIoEQI+FHyG2roIXsb6WpwEhdYUMm/fCSfd 4e4Ll1HsUNvtXqO5nfxMvRRAqEe+sohjZI/H4yrj+w1MRTypvmWx+92ADKuQDdcZ2BYm g4cw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.107.136 with SMTP id hc8mr24426331wib.78.1415567841093; Sun, 09 Nov 2014 13:17:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.92.7 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Nov 2014 13:17:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <9C799778-79DC-4D5F-BA5C-EA94A573ED10@freebsdbrasil.com.br> Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 19:17:20 -0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: netmap-ipfw on em0 em1 From: Evandro Nunes To: Patrick Tracanelli , Luigi Rizzo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , Mahnaz Talebi X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:17:23 -0000 professor luigi where can I find the code for netmap-fwd you mentioned on usenix paper? ** https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc12/atc12-final186.pdf On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Evandro Nunes wrote: > hello again patrick > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Patrick Tracanelli < > eksffa@freebsdbrasil.com.br> wrote: > >> > (Machine-A)<-->Machine-B<--->(MachineC) >> > >> > Machine-A: >> > em0 172.16.251.3/24 >> > >> > Machine-B: >> > em1: 172.16.251.1/24 >> > em2: 172.16.252.1/24 >> > 10.0-STABLE w/ latest netmap-ipfw and netmap code from google code >> > repository >> > >> > Machine-C: >> > em0 172.16.252.3/24 >> >> Now, your scenario is a typical routing topology. kipfw has no packet >> forwarding capabilities whats why when you start it, you are out of >> forwarding capabilities and therefore, out of communication between machine >> A and C because they just need it in your topology. >> >> So for your testing purposes read again what Mahaza said: >> >> >> ipfw works as a bridge and copy >> >> incoming packets to em0 to em1 if they pass defined rules (and vice >> versa, >> >> from em1 to em0). >> >> Got it? kipfw will work as a BRIDGE and COPY between the NIC ports. >> >> Therefore on your topology do a simple change: >> >> Machine-C: >> ifconfig em0 172.16.251.4/24 >> >> So machine C will be in the same network of machine A. >> >> WITHOUT kipfw you will be OUT of communication. If you want to have >> communication without kipfw please configure if_bridge(4) properly. >> >> Now WHEN you ./kipfw netmap:em1 netmap:em2 you will BRIDGE em1 and em2 >> ports and therefore you will HAVE communication between the NICS. >> >> And you are done, just as a miracle! Thanks to Luigi. >> > > YES IT WORKED YES > thank you VERY MUCH for the kind help and for making it clear all the > stuff I missed reading, yes I assume I should have read more or at least > understood > now I can see how the things works and it does work > > THANK YOU again very much > > > >> Now its time to have some fun: >> >> ipfw/ipfw add pipe 1 all from 172.16.251.0/24 to 172.16.251.0/24 >> ipfw/ipfw pipe 1 config bw 128Kbit/s >> delay 300 >> >> and now ping machine-A and machine-C and see dummynet working as >> expected... >> >> I believe you can keep on with your testings now!!! :-) >> > > yes it worked as well > > now let me ask you all, other than click, does netmap offers something > that can do packet forwarding? simple packet forwarding like the scenario I > was trying before? I know this is not kipfw and not bridge but is there > something? > > thank you > > > >> BTW Luigi, I see netmap was commited to GENERIC on -CURRENT. I believe it >> may be a good idea to add netmap-ipfw to the base system now, to both >> promote more testing and also to be a good companion to netmap on GENERIC. >> I dont mean a new ipfw-netmap binary under /sbin/ but just the code on >> /usr/src/tools/tools. >> > > yes and some handbook or a better README that at least mentions the > correct syntax for the tools > I think adrian chadd mentioned something about that in an earlier message > > >> >> I've been using netmap-ipfw for a while and sure it lacks more flexbility >> like the ability to kipfw several ports, etc. But as it is right now, it's >> very stable and reliable for a preliminary code. Thats why I believe it >> should be on the base system. Thank you very much for the incredible >> technology. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >