From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 22 01:13:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDAEE106566C for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:13:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pz0-f54.google.com (mail-pz0-f54.google.com [209.85.210.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3DA8FC12 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:13:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dadr6 with SMTP id r6so315485dad.13 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:13:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=bCjRMEWYlJ/io+OfyvpmUJ5BQ3nKPlVNFhHixoUzOa4=; b=n1cRRFlCrV8j7DCjJzFifIKZKraIueYxLTbvImbt1zE4DMOTyNyEYsPNDj1/+yZsph hu0bF6w+0IZRl5B5VtY4Y0lm44AlkgeSQxMo1e2nMGRPToS7Z7tAZHV9mmW0wod36GXF klc8thQLYByuW4X+Ghnel1KXihgKdFdatOtKsApJYHrV4rnPjoLo5tkEZ0T4Fc3tRfqt ovfd4QVhJrfFDa57MxfXPgfQbTkPOTKKlFNBP2Ueb7BRmWbZmqA9E73UBz3FmDL1fkxQ 9sYz3QLw1fT50A9AuSRF6cYY5HbUa8TrKO87CVPLEZ67o/kJODeLko3RpQIZUR45q4uQ ZNTQ== Received: by 10.68.129.38 with SMTP id nt6mr49031490pbb.76.1345597981915; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pyunyh@gmail.com (lpe4.p59-icn.cdngp.net. [114.111.62.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vh7sm2533957pbc.22.2012.08.21.18.12.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pyunyh@gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:12:53 -0700 From: YongHyeon PYUN Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:12:53 -0700 To: Peter Jeremy Message-ID: <20120822171253.GB3300@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <20120821095527.GA33206@hell.ukr.net> <20120821164217.GA45780@hell.ukr.net> <20120821222701.GA94197@server.rulingia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120821222701.GA94197@server.rulingia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Vitalij Satanivskij , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dhclient cause up/down cycle after 239356 ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 01:13:08 -0000 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 08:27:01AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2012-Aug-21 19:42:17 +0300, Vitalij Satanivskij wrote: > >Look's like dhclient do down/up sequence - > > Not intentionally. > > >Aug 21 19:21:00 home kernel: fxp0: link state changed to UP > >Aug 21 19:21:01 home kernel: fxp0: link state changed to DOWN > >Aug 21 19:21:01 home dhclient: New IP Address (fxp0): xx.xx.xx.xx > >Aug 21 19:21:01 home dhclient: New Subnet Mask (fxp0): 255.255.255.0 > >Aug 21 19:21:01 home dhclient: New Broadcast Address (fxp0): xx.xx.xx.xx > >Aug 21 19:21:01 home dhclient: New Routers (fxp0): xx.xx.xx.xx > >Aug 21 19:21:03 home kernel: fxp0: link state changed to UP > > I can reproduce this behaviour - but only on fxp (i82559 in my case) > NICs. My bge (BCM5750) and rl (RTL8139) NICs do not report the > spurious DOWN/UP. (I don't normally run DHCP on any fxp interfaces, > so I didn't see it during my testing). > > The problem appears to be the > $IFCONFIG $interface inet alias 0.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 broadcast 255.255.255.255 up > executed by /sbin/dhclient-script during PREINIT. This is making the > fxp NIC reset the link (actually, assigning _any_ IP address to an fxp > NIC causes it to reset the link). The post r239356 dhclient detects This comes from the hardware limitation. Assigning addresses will result in programming multicast filter and fxp(4) controllers require full controller reset to reprogram the multicast filter. > the link going down and exits. > > >Before r239356 iface just doing down/up without dhclient exit and > >everything work fine. > > For you, anyway. Failing to detect link down causes problems for me > because my dhclient was not seeing my cable-modem resets and therefore > failing to reacquire a DHCP lease. > > -- > Peter Jeremy