Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 6 Nov 1999 13:51:37 +0200
From:      Tim Priebe <tim@iafrica.com.na>
To:        chad@DCFinc.com, "Chad R. Larson" <chad@DCFinc.com>, stable@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: VLAN support in -stable? (fwd)
Message-ID:  <99110614162802.00318@310.priebe.alt.na>
References:  <199911051658.JAA23468@freeway.dcfinc.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 05 Nov 1999, Chad R. Larson wrote:
> During an off-line discussion, a friend of mine wrote:
> 
> >>> I have just come across a big problem using vlans on a FreeBSD box.
> >>> The mtu on the vlan interfaces is only 1496 bytes, the problem is
> >>> that any packets destined for the Interface larger than this are
> >>> just thrown away.  The solution
> > 
> > It's true that 802.1Q makes packets be 4 bytes longer.  However, I've
> > not found a NIC that can't handle the larger packet, and hubs sure don't
> > care.  The switches think it's just ducky, usually, since they hope to
> > implement the VLAN feature themselves.  Changing the MTU in BSD is the
> > wrong approach, though.  What they need to do is increase the size of
> > the ethernet header by 4 bytes (ETHER_MAX_LEN).  There needs to be a
> > mechanism by which this may be done without a kernel rebuild, though.

I thought this was the solution, I added 4 to ETHER_MAX_LEN, rebuilt the
kernel, rebooted. The mtu on the physical interfaces was 1504, so I changed it
to 1500. I then reurned the mtu on the sun to 1500, and ran a few simple tests,
it looked fine. The following morning, I was told things were a mess. A quick
look and the system was running at 100% inturupt, 0% idle. I switched the
kernel back, and rebooted, droped the mtu on the sun to 1496, and people could
talk to the sun properly again. A little side note the system is still at 100%
interupt, so that part of the problem had nothing to do with the change. I will
try again as soon as I get some new equipment ready.

> > The thing that really surprised me was that I can send both "tagged"
> > packets and normal ethernet packets on the same BSD interface!  I don't
> > know why I was so surprised.  I have a 3COM 802.1Q-compliant switch with
> > one of its 10/100 ports configured as a VLAN trunk (so it expects its
> > packets to have the 4-byte tags) and another of its ports in a specified
> > VLAN.  I built my BSD kernel with support for 24 vlans, and hacked
> > ifconfig to let me set the vlan number (no tools in the distribution to
> > do that).  I can talk out the switch's port just fine, and I can also
> > talk to the switch and other things on the normal BSD interface just as
> > though the tagged packets weren't there.  So, the BSD interface sends
> > both tagged and untagged packets and things on the LAN see the ones they
> > are supposed to, without the others appearing to be problems.  Cool!
> > 
> > However, if you have bpf configured in your kernel, it will panic 
> > occasionally when doing TCP over tagged packets.  I'm looking for info
> > on that one.

I do not have bpf configured and it ocassionally panics now,  but with the
system sitting at 100%  interupt it may have nothing to do with vlans.

Tim.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99110614162802.00318>