Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote:

> On 5.8 and earlier:
> 
> # ifconfig tun1 link0
> 
> Then you'll be able to add it to the bridge.

Thanks Giancarlo and Stuart! That solved it.

> On -current (and will be the case for 5.9), use e.g. 'dev tap1' instead
> (and add tap1 to the bridge interface).

I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

> I note you say "assign IP address directly to a bridge" - that isn't how
> it works in OpenBSD, you should assign the IP to a member interface
> of the bridge.

Okay, I did it (for em0). em0, tun0 and tun1 are now in the bridge and as 
long as em0 is not concerned, bridge is working fine (machines see each 
other and the box). However there is another problem.

I have four machines, let's call them:

- mtcp - Windows 7 machine connected to OpenVPN with TCP
- mudp - Linux machine connected to OpenVPN over UDP
- meth - Linux machine connected directly to em0
- mbsd - OpenBSD server with bridge

Machines mtcp and mudp communicate with each other and with mbsd without 
any problems. Machine meth and mbsd also communicate with each other.

However when I try to ping mtcp from meth, this is what happens.

1. meth sends arp request, receives reply and starts sending icmp packets. 
This can be seen in tcpdump on meth side (tcpdump -i eth2 -n host 
172.24.40.6):

11:12:59.235984 ARP, Request who-has 172.24.40.6 tell 172.24.40.2, length 28
11:12:59.445795 ARP, Reply 172.24.40.6 is-at 00:50:b6:11:XX:XX, length 46
11:12:59.445820 IP 172.24.40.2 > 172.24.40.6: ICMP echo request, id 26368, seq 
1, length 64
11:13:00.243925 IP 172.24.40.2 > 172.24.40.6: ICMP echo request, id 26368, seq 
2, length 64
11:13:01.251932 IP 172.24.40.2 > 172.24.40.6: ICMP echo request, id 26368, seq 
3, length 64

2. mbsd sees only arp request and reply, but does not see icmp requests 
(tcpdump -i bridge0 -n host 172.24.40.6), so of course these requests are 
not forwarded to the pinged box (meth):

11:12:59.508367 arp who-has 172.24.40.6 tell 172.24.40.2
11:12:59.717785 arp reply 172.24.40.6 is-at 00:50:b6:11:XX:XX

Any idea what can be wrong?

-- 
"qui hic minxerit aut cacaverit, habeat deos superos et inferos iratos"
http://www.chmurka.net/

Reply via email to