From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 6 21:50:05 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE9B16A4CE for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:50:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (mproxy.gmail.com [216.239.56.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4720643D58 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:50:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from zombyfork@gmail.com) Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id x71so13211cwb for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 14:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.11.98.65 with SMTP id v65mr19858cwb; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 14:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <346a8022040806145018a5e18@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 17:50:04 -0400 From: Coleman Kane To: hackers@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Network interface RUNNING and UP flags X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: cokane@cokane.org List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:50:05 -0000 Hi, I have been having some trouble working with getting tapN network interfaces into the 'RUNNING' state. I have been trying to figure out how to set the RUNNING flag on an interface, which is needed before the kernel will actually begin sending packets from said network interface. So far, the only way I have been able to figure out how to do this is to assign an IPv4 address to the interface, I am guessing that an un-addressed network interface is supposed to remain not RUNNING even if it is UP by design. The problem is that only an IPv4 address assignment will bring it up and running. If I attempt to assign an IPv6 address to the interface, it will go UP, but not RUNNING. I have determined that I can assign an IPv4 address (such as 10.0.0.1) to it, and then subsequently remove it (via -alias) and this will leave the interface in the running state. My questions are: 1) Why doesn't assigning an IPv6 address produce the same side effects and 2) Is there a way to set this interface flag without assigning an IPv4 address (or any address for that matter) first? Mainly for number two, I would like to be able to run interfaces bridged together without having to also give all of them addresses. -- thanks, coleman kane