From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jan 2 8:11: 9 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB9F37B401 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from hotmail.com (f12.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB0B43E4A for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:11:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bill_moran2@hotmail.com) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 08:06:24 -0800 Received: from 66.132.12.15 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 16:06:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [66.132.12.15] From: "Bill Moran" To: y.grossel@hexanet.fr Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: promiscuous mode / strange ethernet packets duplication problem Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 11:06:23 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2003 16:06:24.0723 (UTC) FILETIME=[E62B9230:01C2B278] Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >From: יי Yann GROSSEL ייי >On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 09:42:13 -0500 >"Bill Moran" wrote: > > >Gateways are designed to forward packets from network to network. If a > > >machine wants to send a packet to a remote network, it will send that > > >packet to the gateway by putting the gateway interface MAC address in > > >the destination field of the ethernet packet. The gateway will know > > >that it must forward the packet because of that. And it will know where > > >to forward the packet by looking to the destination IP address field of > > >the packet. > > > > > >Here the machines are "forwarding" ethernet packets with a destination > > >MAC address field set to ANOTHER machine of our network. In other > > >words, these packets are NOT targetted to the "gateways", neither from > > >their MAC address destination field nor from their IP address > > >destination field. > > > > > >So why are these packets "forwarded" ? > > > > Well, this is getting into internals that are a little beyond me, but I > > would say that it's because forwarding occurs at the IP level. You > > seem to be confusing the behaviour your expecting with a bridge, which > > forwards at the MAC level. I'd bet the kernel logic that handles > > forwarding knows nothing about MAC addresses (based on the network stack > > model) and thus can't make decisions based on them. > >I think it can't be so. If a gateway's kernel doesn't look at the >destination MAC address of ethernet packets before forwarding them, >a gateway on a network with hubs (and not switches) will try to >forward ALL packets passing on the wire. Let me restate the fact that much of the exact answer to this is a little over my head (I'm surprised that a guru hasn't responded with an exact answer yet). I still don't see how your logic could work. By definition, and IP router can not be using MAC information. It's perfectly possible for a FreeBSD machine to be a gateway and have NO interfaces that use MAC addresses. > > Is there a reason that forwarding should be on for these machines? > >Some of the machines were not gateways, so we turned of forwading off >on them after we noticed the problem. Doing so reduced the amount of >"flood". That would be what I would expect. >However other machines are true gateways to other networks so we can't >turn forwading off on these. Wow ... this must be a big network. I've never had need for very many gateways on a single hub/switch (never more than 1 that I can remember) Not knowing any of the details of your network, I can't say for sure, but I will state this observation: I have seen people blame FreeBSD for doing things when it was configured improperly. Specifically, I have seen people with outrageous (and pretty much incorrect) gateway/routing configs that blamed FreeBSD for the instability of the network. The problem was solved when I altered the network topology ... and ended up with a single gateway. Obviously, this isn't always possible on very large networks, but I still find it odd that you'd have more than 1 gateway on a particular hub/switch. Are the gateway machines still causing the flood? >PS: someone is posting right now in the freebsd-net@freebsd.org ML a >problem that look very much like mine ("Routing and Zebra") Please CC me if you find a solution, as I'm curious now ;) -Bill _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message