Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 00:05:53 +0000 From: Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> To: Alexander Zagrebin <alex@zagrebin.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Nikos Vassiliadis <nvass@gmx.com> Subject: Re: 8.2-PRERELEASE: if_bridge ARP and broadcasts issues Message-ID: <4D40B6E1.2050506@rewt.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110126052147.GF67220@gw.zagrebin.ru> References: <20110125133226.GD67220@gw.zagrebin.ru> <4D3EF966.7010209@gmx.com> <20110126052147.GF67220@gw.zagrebin.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26/01/2011 05:21, Alexander Zagrebin wrote: > Hi! > > On 25.01.2011 18:25:10 +0200, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: > >>> The reason is in ARP handling code: it looks for an address of the interface >>> belonging to a bridge, but there is not check that a bridge is the same. >>> >>> Attached patch (patch-if_ether.c) fixes the issue. >>> >> >> I tried your patch and it works for me. > > Thanks for confirmation! > >> >>> 2. Broadcasts issue >>> >>> I have a box with two NICs: re0 and wlan0. re0 and wlan0 are members of the >>> bridge0. re0 has IP address 192.168.1.1; wlan0 hasn't an address configured. >>> I have the samba installed. The smbd and nmbd listens on the 192.168.1.1. >>> There are no problems with the clients connected to the re0, but the samba >>> clients connected to the wlan0 has problems with the network browsing and >>> domain logons. >>> I've found that nmbd doesn't receive udp broadcasts received on the wlan0, >>> though bridge0 successfully retransmits this broadcast out of re0. >>> I've looked in the sources, and it seems that in this case subnet broadcasts >>> have to be handled in ether_output(), but this doesn't work anyway... >>> >>> Can anybody help to fix this issue? >> >> As far as I recall, the recommended setup is to assign IP addresses to >> the bridge interface, not the member interfaces. Could you try this? > > Yes, when ip address is assigned to bridge0 or inbound interface > (wlan0 in this case) then there are no problems. > This may be used as workaround, but... > As there is no direct interdiction to use addresses bound to a member interfaces, > it seems it's a bug. > That is valid behaviour, that is how it should be done - other oses such as linux enforce this behaviour. Thanks, J
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D40B6E1.2050506>