Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:57:58 +0400 From: Vick <vick@unet.ru> To: "C. Stephen Gunn" <csg@waterspout.com> Cc: Net <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: VLAN improvement needed... Message-ID: <39337486.2460358A@unet.ru> References: <392E754B.BCF8AC96@unet.ru> <20000529163917.A15841@waterspout.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] "C. Stephen Gunn" wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 04:59:56PM +0400, Victor Ponomarev wrote: > > > Now VLAN support in stable is bad. > > I'm not sure what you mean by now. if_vlan has always had some > shortcomings. I don't think anything has changed recently. May be I didn't correctly understand the reason for introducing this pseudo interface, but I've thought it's done for interVLAN connectivity. By the way does anyone advice a good starting point for phys level network support in BSD (realization strategy, common order of pseudo interface applying to packets and so on..) > > > When host send a packet about 1514 byte switch trunk port add 4 byte and > > router trunk port substitute vlan tag to another and send it back to > > switch. The latter remove vlan header and send packet to appropriate > > vlan ports. > > > > Currently FreeBSD router simply drop large packet on it's interface. > > That's very bad... > > Actually several ethernet cards drop these frames as giants. There > are also a few (ti in particular) that do not. > > > The existing solution on these problem for Intel card may be found at > > http://www.euitt.upm.es/~pjlobo/ > > I've reviewed this patch carefully before. I still don't see any > changes the the FXP driver that allow reception of tagged frames. > > I do have some modifications around that allow larger frame sizes on > 3Com 3c905B-TX cards. I'll dug that patch up, and put it online: > > http://www.physics.purdue.edu/~csg/xl-vlan.patch > Well your patch looks more reasonable, because you really change MTU. > > But there's another problem with small ip packet. When BSD router strip > > ethernet header for payload < 46 it strip padding bytes also. But when > > it reinserted data with another vlan header it don't add padding bytes > > and we have runts packets on interface. > > Do you think this is related to VLANs because of the encapsulation? > > Do you have a method to duplicate this behavior? > I think it related to VLAN realization. See please tcpdump file attached, frames 9,10; 35-38; and so on... 192.168.2.1 is VLAN 4 spok is VLAN 3 It's clearly than undersized packets didn't put back correctly... > > - Steve [-- Attachment #2 --] ng39 cap ZpT%WE#a%JCvH}v/v7$H&mH1 )B՛ M(NE!T&AAmHȌ:Cy4-N;5}mZH{ws9~Exzz Ly~Y?k",Q=RE9Y S2<LuSFXnVtvʯ%}:Qz?"ފ<Tb7^-_٥. MiOϙg$_+aIY,.C4~!`bT,#oɽXR3QV+Qi//'W\no?&T^F5[Js]˃5'=$8Wp8T~IL<G#FlV$n1TǼˑpcS8Vfh4>-)?Q*GO*de//G95'x$T%ch#8AAGTgR'콮4B,?xi"Cu=D"O*x x3,Qr:HrՌڈ$8h"o oE^63odv!<[4Ft^xxƛьFD,˘MԶ(֙`5p %@?/(z-nGC\V,5Vc*ϖm쑚Ԯn,Zj]mk3Ux%'j#: ~u_xn0ܶdE?.'!c:u%ن=ƾ k+=11'{?|"q7 ~AxV%Q#QI|DKVpˇEoP9 ]Hɳ*FRhrf4$>|QyP_R8|#R+{HBѠUv!;@M\1.T3n9ױTlQSP9u܈0}oUMQr0`[Hjdd%[#k[IX2(rp<M;A6;N3_ 6Ffdr O 7.,y@H;@5E=Kknn' ᮉ6"!j!zI;Tn!nvJn_|Qn3p ŻGs1!MBRa;I)- eoˮ'IA<ƤrЃwŲMh>5Obn*״\e-sݵ6<Hʥ}{-k;xۦ'8I*)iKJ>[ 8VqV o6r:0X?%QO.UNȟ_E1_82i O<11\Y:wϹKMEXú}H_(5DG9|}5lWvt-aKE&atZ®WԜs[U֢'iZ8Z[;]=0Er 4R5+sz+S17'?'Gl99rXzJCؙ>1glSZSnXєK¢O2pe{2b+hC1,{ Q2*DF˝nK`̄wAWt{B\0)VZLj' O'ꌥ,fK>C%g[)3/'ꌥ<!Cۑ c8JWY5hA<·v|ꢒ]U$NH0v辰+=,7e.ƫK'p!^}9{V$p@iRi;mˉe#ozYqe>r"o[:<tc;~7fD<ާZ{,n, |.`%)&Sn#nIe_ew@35 U]O1۴Yw0U0]" + Y^ϟ8fJING&j0S9Gh(*EIP׆Ժ~NKwΟZOmD#T!/F~?+(W+h3YrjRXt)YH/7x`S<BiP|=Vzȋ٦,Yt$H1jzI(W<ǚN_3GyЎ wE>PFvWMl1>CPp\pW<Ew$?f܆i乂1?,ș1یyxb"jc{#4rN1L*zkQIED$hp5O8!?sB wD${a~?jL'R~&r.>kWd`c$3cLcb1ܝdtȷ;<MFjzYI(d&IBNoYcYn74cH'rcHu4ɧ9KUC+&%@<4qEv#*M4h+$GR1{o\S{(rjÐ4du"Rp:s>~S=|,vy]'@v2+ՙ̊MYyԟi|i;F(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39337486.2460358A>
