From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Thu Jun 23 12:15:05 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A813B73A6E for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:15:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk) Received: from smtp.krpservers.com (smtp.krpservers.com [62.13.128.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.krpservers.com", Issuer "RapidSSL SHA256 CA - G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C6B61A8C for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:15:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk) Received: from [10.12.30.106] (vpn01-01.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.213] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.krpservers.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u5NCF1hj061381 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:15:02 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:14:53 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Problem with VLAN config and traffic after 10.1-R -> 10.3-R-p5 Upgrade? Message-ID: <2033B3FC769B74294656A089@[10.12.30.106]> In-Reply-To: <2ED5D9FEB55641BF734C14F3@[10.12.30.106]> References: <2ED5D9FEB55641BF734C14F3@[10.12.30.106]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:15:05 -0000 --On 23 June 2016 11:53 +0100 Karl Pielorz wrote: > This gets increasingly weird if I run tcpdump on the 10.3 box. The act of > running 'tcpdump -i lagg1.30 -n' actually fixes the problem: As a follow up - running 'ifconfig lagg1 promisc' fixes the issue as well (as you'd kind of expect if tcpdump does while it's running). I don't know if that's a good idea / workaround for now? -Kp