Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:24:37 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: netmap-ipfw on em0 em1 Message-ID: <CA%2BhQ2%2BihsY=bNx3VcB%2BV95awQM9EQ_TXhEr=Un3kYseqP_MqTg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG4HiT60JocgP6JRG_g6hL2nUP3oc3q5hK59Q2iT5QC5REhKnw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAG4HiT4KHG%2Bb2um6-p4szWio8qmxN%2BadO5hO9J5UGPmsa%2BZC5g@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BhQ2%2BhAJZk-Y1Yw2xmHmxSMHpFN_byX94Bq33-th2vrp7q2JA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4HiT7Mtedoxvc69nEyKp1ZYBidZTBcEKG1L9Mkj_Rqeh4bpA@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BhQ2%2BjOnHX-x=k5=iZtR3=OWfcFBD8WTD_d_VicicJzPevcSw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4HiT5fVCpmJ8uDh4SvVown7-vLCMKJP8-QcaW9LQfpWZEiBA@mail.gmail.com> <20141104221216.GA17502@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <CAG4HiT5YqnnVW3dSzn3tpP4VAkGY7Qg3ZZuZ=vmwGznX8m7u2A@mail.gmail.com> <9547E931-AF82-4F5C-AA22-865E93831A27@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <CAG4HiT46ezpTzxCj%2B1PB=Ft-KKFs17f85dtRC8sgzSO%2B35cW=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4HiT60JocgP6JRG_g6hL2nUP3oc3q5hK59Q2iT5QC5REhKnw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The code on code.google.com/p/netmap-ipfw/ works well for me on physical interfaces. For using the nics many of your examples show that you are not using the various programs correctly. There is clearly a mismatch between what this code does and your expectations, and there isn't much i can do to fix that. I acknowledge that the code might have rough edges and poor error reporting, but it is what it is. cheers luigi On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Patrick Tracanelli < >> eksffa@freebsdbrasil.com.br> wrote: >> >>> Hey, what you are doing wrong is much more simple than you expect. >>> >>> > # ./kipfw em1 em2 > & /tmp/kipfw.log & >>> > [1] 66583 >>> >>> Just run ./kipfw netmap:em1 netmap:em2 and this will probably work. >>> >>> Please remember to redirect kipfw output to somewhere you are not >>> reading only *after* you are sure the output is showing errors. If you >>> could read the output you would probably get something like =E2=80=9Cer= ror opening >>> em0=E2=80=9D or something like that coming netmap. >>> >> >> hello dear patrick >> thank you, yes it did work now >> at least it is counting packets >> >> but things are still weird, even though I have only count and allow >> rules, and yes they are counting packets, when I run kipfw, every packet= on >> em1 and em2 gets dropped immediately. no matter they are allow rules >> counting packets, packets get dropped and machine-A gets completely >> isolated from machine-C >> >> any further help is appreciated >> > > > hello everybody, > > one clear and simple question: is anyone actually using netmap-ipfw on > real NICs out there? or has anyone ever used? > > because every documentation I read, or video I watch, is based on vale > NICs, not real ones; documentation is also not clear about or in fact > existant regarding real NICs (this is not a complaint, I know netmap-ipfw > is experimental and I dont expect it to be rich yet, but I am talking abo= ut > any sort of doc, readme files, commit messages, mailing list excerpts...)= , > not even the syntax netmap:NIC was clearly mentioned before I was told to > do that > > I read the guy from BSDRP Project mentioning he got down on traffic after > enabling netmap-ipfw, I have read the same thing from a guy mr Meyer, and > from a couple others in different dates (but mostly in this list here) an= d > everyone seem to gave given up. > > I started looking at the source code for extras/ and stuff but I am no > hacker, and I could not figure out what I could be doing wrong. This is w= hy > I ask if anyone actually runs netmap-ipfw on real NICs. Im not asking for= a > recipe, Im just trying to figure out if I am focusing on testing somethin= g > that will never work because it lacks a usable piece of code to make it r= un > on real NICs (and I am not capable of coding it myself), or if I still > doing something wrong... > > using netmap-ipfw with VALE ports is shows a very different behavior and > works as expected and documented, not on real NICs has a complete differe= nt > behavior, dropping everything even though it counts packets on an "allow" > rule... > > > > > --=20 -----------------------------------------+------------------------------- Prof. Luigi RIZZO, rizzo@iet.unipi.it . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ . Universita` di Pisa TEL +39-050-2211611 . via Diotisalvi 2 Mobile +39-338-6809875 . 56122 PISA (Italy) -----------------------------------------+-------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BhQ2%2BihsY=bNx3VcB%2BV95awQM9EQ_TXhEr=Un3kYseqP_MqTg>