Nevermind, I logged into bugzilla and saw that the bug is actually acknowledged and fixed in kernel-2.6.32-128.el6.
Sorry for spamming the list. dano On 30.4.2011, at 22:27, Daniel Kontsek wrote: > Hello, > > I have installed SL6.0 on a system, which has two NICs connected to > independent switches. > Host network setup: > |-> bond0: eth0 and eth1 in active-backup bond0 (mode=1) > |-> bond0.100: tagged vlan attached to bridge br100 > |-> br100: bridge with static IP > > This setup produces messages in logs like this: bond0.100: received packet > with own address as source address. > Running tcpdump (on br100 and bond0.100) shows that this is related to ARP > requests, which i see twice - untagged and vlan tagged: > > 06:06:16.376513 00:22:bb:66:b1:23 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP > (0x0806), length 42: Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 (len 4), Request who-has > 172.16.0.11 tell 172.16.0.19, length 28 > 06:06:16.376566 00:22:bb:66:b1:23 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype 802.1Q > (0x8100), length 64: vlan 100, p 0, ethertype ARP, Ethernet (len 6), IPv4 > (len 4), Request who-has 172.16.0.11 tell 172.16.0.19, length 46 > > Then I start a KVM virtual machine with an interface attached to bridge br100. > The KVM guest cannot be randomly pinged (i.e. 16% packet loss). > brctl showmacs br100 sometimes shows the mac address of the kvm guest in the > same port 1 as the bond0.100 iface. > > > However, when I put one interface of the bond down (ifdown eth1), the ping > gets replies like it should and the messages disappear from logs. Also the > vlan tagged ARPs are no longer seen on br100/bond0.100. > > > We also use this network configuration on CentoOS 5.5 systems, where it's > working as expected (although there are other problems). > > There is a bug report describing quite similar problem, but it seems to be > ignored by Red Hat: > https://partner-bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623199 > > This problem was already discussed on other lists, but I could not spot a > satisfying solution there: > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/bridge/2009-December/006863.html > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-net/msg17574.html > > I would appreciate any suggestions on how to resolve this problem. > > Thanks, > > dano
