Thank you Koshibe-san for your reply.
Here is the output of ping, after the steps:
$ ping 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
ping: sendmsg: Network is down
ping: wrote 8.8.8.8 64 chars, ret=-1
...
So, it seems the ping fails, except, this time there is some output.
> > Interestingly,
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Aham Brahmasmi wrote:
> Thank you Koshibe-san for your reply.
>
>> I've actually held back on that diff since it's a bit insufficient by itself.
>
> Ok.
>
>> Actually, you said that you had just em0 on that switch. Can you try
>> adding a local port (addlocal inste
Thank you Koshibe-san for your reply.
> I've actually held back on that diff since it's a bit insufficient by itself.
Ok.
> Actually, you said that you had just em0 on that switch. Can you try
> adding a local port (addlocal instead of add) alongside em0? It will
> be a vether(4) interface that
> tap0 is a control interface created by switchd to communicate with
> switches. It won't carry normal network traffic.
(Last bit of noise, and I'm done)
Actually, I think I'm wrong here. I'll need to dig a bit more to
answer correctly.
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Ayaka Koshibe wrote:
>> Currently, I am using a bridge. From what I understand from the patch
>> and the cvsweb history, that patch is waiting for ok and commit.
>
> I've actually held back on that diff since it's a bit insufficient by itself.
Sorry, I should elab
> Currently, I am using a bridge. From what I understand from the patch
> and the cvsweb history, that patch is waiting for ok and commit.
I've actually held back on that diff since it's a bit insufficient by itself.
> This time, the switch does not close. However, I am still unable to
> ping 8.8
> > $ cat /etc/hostname.switch0
> > add em0
> > up
> >
> > Here, em0 is the egress interface connected to the dedicated/bare-metal
> > machine provider's network. This provider's network is beyond my
> > control. As such, there might be a loop in the provider's network.
>
> (Sorry, was meaning to
> $ cat /etc/hostname.switch0
> add em0
> up
>
> Here, em0 is the egress interface connected to the dedicated/bare-metal
> machine provider's network. This provider's network is beyond my
> control. As such, there might be a loop in the provider's network.
(Sorry, was meaning to respond but got bu
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:24 AM
> From: "Ayaka Koshibe"
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Cannot access internet with virtual switch
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:25 AM, Aham Brahmasmi
> wrote:
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:1
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:25 AM, Aham Brahmasmi wrote:
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:18 AM
>> From: "Ayaka Koshibe"
>> To: misc@openbsd.org
>> Subject: Re: Cannot access internet with virtual switch
>>
>> > This informs us that for a P
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 10:18 AM
> From: "Ayaka Koshibe"
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Cannot access internet with virtual switch
>
> > This informs us that for a PACKET_OUT with action OUTPUT, it cannot
> > have its port as ANY. No
> This informs us that for a PACKET_OUT with action OUTPUT, it cannot
> have its port as ANY. Now, I do not know why for a PACKET_OUT message,
> an action OUTPUT cannot have port as ANY. More importantly, I do not
> know why the controller seems to be sending the PACKET_OUT with action
> OUTPUT and
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 at 6:50 PM
> From: "Aham Brahmasmi"
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Cannot access internet with virtual switch
>
> > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 at 5:02 AM
> > From: "Ayaka Koshibe"
> > To: "Aham Br
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 at 5:02 AM
> From: "Ayaka Koshibe"
> To: "Aham Brahmasmi"
> Cc: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Cannot access internet with virtual switch
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Aham Brahmasmi wrote:
> > Hello mis
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:40 PM, Aham Brahmasmi wrote:
> Hello misc,
>
> Problem
> A physical server with a switch (add em0 up) cannot access the internet.
> However, the same host with a bridge (add em0 up) can access the
> internet.
>
> Steps
> $ ifconfig
> em0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> llad
Hello misc,
Problem
A physical server with a switch (add em0 up) cannot access the internet.
However, the same host with a bridge (add em0 up) can access the
internet.
Steps
$ ifconfig
em0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
lladdr 22:22:22:22:22:22
index 1 priority 0 llprio 3
groups: eg
16 matches
Mail list logo
