13.01.2016, 13:02, "Olivier Cochard-Labbé" :
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov
> wrote:
>
>> I suspect the reason here is link state bridge handling.
>> ix0 does not seem to have IFCAP_LINKSTATE option but re(4) does. Probably
>> wlan0 doesn't have LINKSTATE option.
>>
On 1/13/2016 1:31 PM, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov
wrote:
I suspect the reason here is link state bridge handling.
ix0 does not seem to have IFCAP_LINKSTATE option but re(4) does. Probably
wlan0 doesn't have LINKSTATE option.
Code in brid
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Alexander V. Chernikov
wrote:
>
> I suspect the reason here is link state bridge handling.
> ix0 does not seem to have IFCAP_LINKSTATE option but re(4) does. Probably
> wlan0 doesn't have LINKSTATE option.
> Code in bridge_linkcheck() doesn't handle the case with
___
freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
On Dec 23, 2015 2:32 AM, "Olivier Cochard-Labbé" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If wlan0 interface is member of a bridge, FreeBSD didn't reach to
> forward-back packets to wireless client
>
> My setup is this one:
>
> internet gateway <--> [net0] fbsd router [net1 + wifi-hostap in bridge0]
> <--> wireless cli
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Alexander V. Chernikov <
melif...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> Could you show 'netstat -rn' output when one of bridge members is down?
> Btw, I tried to reproduce it today (but, with ix0 instead of wlan0) and I
> wasn't able to trigger the problem.
>
>
Sure,
here some
Ah, okay.
Can you ping out the routed interface whilst this occurs?
-a
On 12 January 2016 at 12:48, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Adrian Chadd
> wrote:
>>
>> This is actually the intended behaviour, right? The routed interface
>> is down, so the IP address o
12.01.2016, 23:48, "Olivier Cochard-Labbé" :
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Adrian Chadd
> wrote:
>
>> This is actually the intended behaviour, right? The routed interface
>> is down, so the IP address on it and connected to it are unreachable.
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> the routed interface is a b
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Adrian Chadd
wrote:
> This is actually the intended behaviour, right? The routed interface
> is down, so the IP address on it and connected to it are unreachable.
>
Hi Adrian,
the routed interface is a bridge interface, and this bridge interface had
only one of
This is actually the intended behaviour, right? The routed interface
is down, so the IP address on it and connected to it are unreachable.
-a
On 11 January 2016 at 14:52, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote:
> After weeks of troubleshooting, at last I found how to reproduce this
> problem ;-)
>
> Her
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:52:47 +0100 Olivier Cochard-Labbé
wrote:
>
> After weeks of troubleshooting, at last I found how to reproduce this
> problem ;-)
>
> Here is the setup:
>
> LAN0 <--> [(re0) fbsd router (bridge0 addm re1 addm wlan0)] <--> Wireless
> LAN
>
> If interface re1 (bridge0 membe
12.01.2016, 01:53, "Olivier Cochard-Labbé" :
> After weeks of troubleshooting, at last I found how to reproduce this
> problem ;-)
Hi Olivier,
>
> Here is the setup:
>
> LAN0 <--> [(re0) fbsd router (bridge0 addm re1 addm wlan0)] <--> Wireless
> LAN
>
> If interface re1 (bridge0 member with wlan0)
After weeks of troubleshooting, at last I found how to reproduce this
problem ;-)
Here is the setup:
LAN0 <--> [(re0) fbsd router (bridge0 addm re1 addm wlan0)] <--> Wireless
LAN
If interface re1 (bridge0 member with wlan0) is in "active" status
(=ethernet cable plugged to something): I don't ha
On Wednesday, 23 December 2015, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> inet 10.239.142.126 netmask 0xffe0 broadcast 10.239.142.127
>
> This looks like a problem with your addressing. That netmask != that
> broadcast.
>
> Please recheck your networking setup!
>
>
> -a
>
That broadcast looks co
Hi,
inet 10.239.142.126 netmask 0xffe0 broadcast 10.239.142.127
This looks like a problem with your addressing. That netmask != that broadcast.
Please recheck your networking setup!
-a
On 23 December 2015 at 02:31, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If wlan0 interface is mem
On 2015-12-23 08:08:29 (-0700), Sergey Manucharian wrote:
> I believe this is related to the fact that wifi adapter cannot have more
> that one MAC address. And that becomes true when it's a member of a
> bridge. There exist some tricky ways to overcome that though.
>
That's true, but that only a
Excerpts from Olivier Cochard-Labbé's message from Wed 23-Dec-15 11:31:
> If wlan0 interface is member of a bridge, FreeBSD didn't reach to
> forward-back packets to wireless client
>
> My setup is this one:
>
> internet gateway <--> [net0] fbsd router [net1 + wifi-hostap in bridge0]
> <--> wire
17 matches
Mail list logo