From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Tue Feb 7 02:52:03 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177E6CD4182 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 02:52:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dmarquess@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yb0-x22f.google.com (mail-yb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB170B19 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 02:52:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dmarquess@gmail.com) Received: by mail-yb0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 123so31333484ybe.3 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:52:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=smHs2Q88ywhBbNZtVT+EjnYDKc0V9x7u8ggenCGtiC8=; b=iBmwAKnQysMw1cA4/xDLpO027D/dLCZnyyeLS8dNC+cvnNfOi58pt0sL23fCpyBQuq v9gE4htjWoaoUNg3Qtg4NF8J2vYiBotNdW6OgiYRZ8Og/11ITyYHwSvHO64qePPvds05 qkcsKUEmr4YKwkGaDwJWvmrtSQiiZfFaOeEYF4dJPauRtVHXPCedrQWNLjyjdf2LHQjD TThUVIP0gszGArNmPT4Hj7xBSYvAdY0O77cgmsR5eLTFsYKySI8g9k/4hdf1LV4ucw6l Qu9jKvYMaepQEADW+3bl+a43SeFQtbl5AiQDeRvwaZnlUtlHMjkeViNiaaTUJKJlJhIm /mCw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=smHs2Q88ywhBbNZtVT+EjnYDKc0V9x7u8ggenCGtiC8=; b=q1Oqzh4ai5UxZ7Obq1qbgBTDMrRzLALySywDwdy3j2xW7BJqYfF7PSx2jIfhAKutAx XjX+rr61mH73MvgpKf8RI00hW3Lk0M2al4wAVeUznFhZ7KOs+pMYMoecwJO9QkGSxysh YQCGsHOp6XtcdUR8xYYiBgoh0eSaFeqcLltrCj5Xi56EtxB0AZoJQm/3NH2GyUlThnPL HFs07jwPFpgRhm3Q+YF6NNV3vDHqiCojCBpyDB4r8soelbqq9BJvDM36hOJr67NKGM62 6TW8sJJqO4Mx3R0B2gWmAMLf89v67ohpJQwcD1DQGuBDaXSjyNUt07VWwvLjoSvXuE5e XwgA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l/R4mQ9adMeOyIXXEH2FPgOKLcH28FXgnLKRHKKeGRFbYHneShXUe+jl3YpP+vRF8sY3sK0idtWE7v6A== X-Received: by 10.37.49.5 with SMTP id x5mr9320476ybx.150.1486435921495; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:52:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.231.135 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:52:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1207dbb0-ec86-34fd-9a74-68d70b3b7892@osfux.nl> References: <11A193E5-555F-4733-B192-49A5FEDCFDEA@up4.com> <66637AFA-D092-4EBB-B998-1BB2B2EE2CB4@up4.com> <1207dbb0-ec86-34fd-9a74-68d70b3b7892@osfux.nl> From: Dustin Marquess Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:52:01 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: tap on lagg ? To: Ruben Cc: FreeBSD virtualization Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 02:52:03 -0000 On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Ruben wrote: > Hi Vincent, > > > >> BTW, I found this a couple of weeks ago and it has just been updated: ht= tps://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D157182 >> >> >>> Le 6 f=C3=A9vr. 2017 =C3=A0 11:11, Vincent Olivier a = =C3=A9crit : >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Has anyone succeeded in having a bhyve VM tap interface on an aggregate= interface (lagg)? From what I have read until now, it seems to be a known = problem, and my experience shows that it is still an issue with FreeBSD 11,= so I would like to know if it is because tap/bridging a lagg is not a reas= onable thing to do anyway=E2=80=A6 >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Vincent > > I have multiple machines on which 2 or more nics make up a LACP lagg > with vlans on it. Those vlan interfaces are in bridges together with the > tap interfaces that are in use by bhyve vms. > > Works as long as I "up" the nics in a specific fasion ( " -tso4 -lro > -vlanhwtag " ) . This works on 10.3 and 11.0 as far as I'm aware and I > have never experienced problems with it (Intel / AMD / em driver / bce > driver, re driver , all kinds of combinations). > > I have no experience in comparable setups without the vlan "layer" though= . I've gotten it to work both with and without vlan just by using -vlanhwtag. Leaving lro & tso4 enabled works fine. In fact, everything works fine with vlanhwtag enabled until I throw epair into the mix. This is using cxgbe/cxl. -Dustin