From nobody Mon Aug 15 11:01:32 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4M5rv648hXz4YXlv for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 11:01:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from grembo@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.evolve.de (mail.evolve.de [213.239.217.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA512 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.evolve.de", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4M5rv56MCqz3DVf for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 11:01:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from grembo@freebsd.org) Received: by mail.evolve.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 711109ad; Mon, 15 Aug 2022 11:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.evolve.de (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id b925ebbe (TLSv1.3:AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Mon, 15 Aug 2022 11:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 13:01:32 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin To: Benoit Chesneau Cc: Ronald Klop , "freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org" Subject: Re: what to check? no IPV6 pings between nodes on the same switch Message-ID: <20220815130132.5fbb67e9.grembo@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: References: <718207270.67.1660552177215@localhost> <1540677665.110.1660556486732@localhost> X-Face: $wrgCtfdVw_H9WAY?S&9+/F"!41z'L$uo*WzT8miX?kZ~W~Lr5W7v?j0Sde\mwB&/ypo^}> +a'4xMc^^KroE~+v^&^#[B">soBo1y6(TW6#UZiC]o>C6`ej+i Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAJFBMVEWJBwe5BQDl LASZU0/LTEWEfHbyj0Txi32+sKrp1Mv944X8/fm1rS+cAAAACXBIWXMAAAsTAAAL EwEAmpwYAAAAB3RJTUUH3wESCxwC7OBhbgAAACFpVFh0Q29tbWVudAAAAAAAQ3Jl YXRlZCB3aXRoIFRoZSBHSU1QbbCXAAAAAghJREFUOMu11DFvEzEUAGCfEhBVFzuq AKkLd0O6VrIQsLXVSZXoWE5N1K3DobBBA9fQpRWc8OkWouaIjedWKiyREOKs+3PY fvalCNjgLVHeF7/3bMtBzV8C/VsQ8tecEgCcDgrzjekwKZ7TwsJZd/ywEKwwP+ZM 8P3drTsAwWn2mpWuDDuYiK1bFs6De0KUUFw0tWxm+D4AIhuuvZqtyWYeO7jQ4Aea 7jUqI+ixhQoHex4WshEvSXdood7stlv4oSuFOC4tqGcr0NjEqXgV4mMJO38nld4+ xKNxRDon7khyKVqY7YR4d+Cg0OMrkWXZOM7YDkEfKiilCn1qYv4mighZiynuHHOA Wq9QJq+BIES7lMFUtcikMnkDGHUoncA+uHgrP0ctIEqfwLHzeSo+eUA66AqzwN6n 2ZHJhw6Qh/PoyC/QENyEyC/AyNjq74Bs+3UH0xYwzDUC4B97HgLocg1QLYgDDO1v f3UX9Y307Ew4AHh67YAFFsxEpkXwpXY3eIgMhAAE3R19L919nNnuD2wlPcDE3UeT L2ytEICQib9BXgS2fU8PrD82ToYO1OEmMSnYTjSqSv9wdC0tPYC+rQRQD9ESnldF CyqfmiYW+tlALt8gH2xrMdC/youbjzPXEun+/ReXsMCDyve3dZc09fn2Oas8oXGc Jj6/fOeK5UmSMPmf/jL+GD8BEj0k/Fn6IO4AAAAASUVORK5CYII= List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4M5rv56MCqz3DVf X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 213.239.217.29 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of grembo@freebsd.org) smtp.mailfrom=grembo@freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.10 / 15.00]; MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-net@freebsd.org]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:213.239.192.0/18, country:DE]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all:c]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[grembo]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_HAS_QUESTION(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 10:07:54 +0000 Benoit Chesneau wrote: > So I noticed that tcpdump was enabling the "promiscuous" mode to the > interface. So I tried to do it manually: `ifconfig ql0 promisc` and > ping worked even after disabling this mode `ifconfig ql0 -promisc`. > > What does happen when the promiscuous mode is enabled? I'm not sure > to understand what is the issue :/ > Does giving the interface also an IPv4 address make a difference, e.g. ifconfig_ql0="inet 10.0.0.1/24"? Best Michael -- Michael Gmelin