Yeah sorry, English is not my first language and I started by the
solution, not the problem.
So here is my setup:
NETWORK A is a wired network with private IPv4/24 addr a public
IPv6/64 addr
NETWORK B is a wireless network with private IPv4/24 addr a public
IPv6/64 addr
On 23/11/15(Mon) 12:57, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
> [...]
> So here is my setup:
>
> NETWORK A is a wired network with private IPv4/24 addr a public IPv6/64
> addr
> NETWORK B is a wireless network with private IPv4/24 addr a public
> IPv6/64 addr
> The Broadband equipment provides
On 23/11/15 16:01, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
On 23/11/15(Mon) 12:57, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
[...]
That seems to be a known regression on 5.8 because re(4) supports
hardware VLAN. The problem is that bridge_input() is called before
vlan_input() for every packet received on a physical interface.
On 22/11/15(Sun) 01:11, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
> On 22/11/2015 00:34, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Sorry for what may appear to be a strange question, but shouldn't there
> >>be a check against
On 22/11/2015 15:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
btw., what OpenBSD version is this diff for? This is not -current.
Thanks for the quick reply. That was my impression too, but it seems
that bridge_output is also used sometimes for forwarding ARP requests by a
code path that I haven't found
On 22/11/15(Sun) 18:30, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
> On 22/11/2015 17:48, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> >On 22/11/15(Sun) 16:56, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
> >>On 22/11/2015 15:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> >>>
> >>>When you say "the bridge changed somewhat" are you saying that you see
> >>>a regression?
On 22/11/15(Sun) 16:56, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
> On 22/11/2015 15:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> >
> >btw., what OpenBSD version is this diff for? This is not -current.
> >> Thanks for the quick reply. That was my impression too, but it seems
> >>that bridge_output is also used sometimes for
On 22/11/2015 17:48, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
On 22/11/15(Sun) 16:56, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
On 22/11/2015 15:52, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
When you say "the bridge changed somewhat" are you saying that you see
a regression? Could you share your setup that, I guess work with 4.9,
and no longer
Hello,
Sorry for what may appear to be a strange question, but shouldn't
there be a check against IFBIF_BLOCKNONIP in bridge_output() in
sys/net/if_bridge.c?
Something like this :
--- if_bridge.c.origTue Jul 21 00:54:29 2015
+++ if_bridge.c Sat Nov 21 16:05:12 2015
@@
On 22/11/2015 00:34, Reyk Floeter wrote:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
Hello,
Sorry for what may appear to be a strange question, but shouldn't there
be a check against IFBIF_BLOCKNONIP in bridge_output() in
sys/net/if_bridge.c?
Why?
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Momtchil Momtchev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for what may appear to be a strange question, but shouldn't there
> be a check against IFBIF_BLOCKNONIP in bridge_output() in
> sys/net/if_bridge.c?
>
Why? bridge_output() is used for packets that are
11 matches
Mail list logo