Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 19:17:20 -0200 From: Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12@gmail.com> To: Patrick Tracanelli <eksffa@freebsdbrasil.com.br>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Mahnaz Talebi <mhnz.talebi@gmail.com> Subject: Re: netmap-ipfw on em0 em1 Message-ID: <CAG4HiT7_3p2f=XLqzr0DYyRsL2R8S0opXKkBHAPH%2B9c8kcw_Jg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG4HiT4UK2tyj%2B0ggjNAfY35oG=zHPW5%2BKXtCyUBn-vPPpCWhg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABfVBTktfLGacJ3PerR%2BgTewbS%2B52Vmno9mcT-XQBNktPFw5%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CAG4HiT7qery5wEevFUS2bb=91tyF77ZmTdZL0WUi3APCcCYT4Q@mail.gmail.com> <9C799778-79DC-4D5F-BA5C-EA94A573ED10@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <CAG4HiT4UK2tyj%2B0ggjNAfY35oG=zHPW5%2BKXtCyUBn-vPPpCWhg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
professor luigi where can I find the code for netmap-fwd you mentioned on usenix paper? ** https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/atc12/atc12-final186.pdf On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12@gmail.com> wrote: > hello again patrick > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Patrick Tracanelli < > eksffa@freebsdbrasil.com.br> wrote: > >> > (Machine-A)<-->Machine-B<--->(MachineC) >> > >> > Machine-A: >> > em0 172.16.251.3/24 >> > >> > Machine-B: >> > em1: 172.16.251.1/24 >> > em2: 172.16.252.1/24 >> > 10.0-STABLE w/ latest netmap-ipfw and netmap code from google code >> > repository >> > >> > Machine-C: >> > em0 172.16.252.3/24 >> >> Now, your scenario is a typical routing topology. kipfw has no packet >> forwarding capabilities whats why when you start it, you are out of >> forwarding capabilities and therefore, out of communication between machine >> A and C because they just need it in your topology. >> >> So for your testing purposes read again what Mahaza said: >> >> >> ipfw works as a bridge and copy >> >> incoming packets to em0 to em1 if they pass defined rules (and vice >> versa, >> >> from em1 to em0). >> >> Got it? kipfw will work as a BRIDGE and COPY between the NIC ports. >> >> Therefore on your topology do a simple change: >> >> Machine-C: >> ifconfig em0 172.16.251.4/24 >> >> So machine C will be in the same network of machine A. >> >> WITHOUT kipfw you will be OUT of communication. If you want to have >> communication without kipfw please configure if_bridge(4) properly. >> >> Now WHEN you ./kipfw netmap:em1 netmap:em2 you will BRIDGE em1 and em2 >> ports and therefore you will HAVE communication between the NICS. >> >> And you are done, just as a miracle! Thanks to Luigi. >> > > YES IT WORKED YES > thank you VERY MUCH for the kind help and for making it clear all the > stuff I missed reading, yes I assume I should have read more or at least > understood > now I can see how the things works and it does work > > THANK YOU again very much > > > >> Now its time to have some fun: >> >> ipfw/ipfw add pipe 1 all from 172.16.251.0/24 to 172.16.251.0/24 >> ipfw/ipfw <http://172.16.251.0/24ipfw/ipfw>; pipe 1 config bw 128Kbit/s >> delay 300 >> >> and now ping machine-A and machine-C and see dummynet working as >> expected... >> >> I believe you can keep on with your testings now!!! :-) >> > > yes it worked as well > > now let me ask you all, other than click, does netmap offers something > that can do packet forwarding? simple packet forwarding like the scenario I > was trying before? I know this is not kipfw and not bridge but is there > something? > > thank you > > > >> BTW Luigi, I see netmap was commited to GENERIC on -CURRENT. I believe it >> may be a good idea to add netmap-ipfw to the base system now, to both >> promote more testing and also to be a good companion to netmap on GENERIC. >> I dont mean a new ipfw-netmap binary under /sbin/ but just the code on >> /usr/src/tools/tools. >> > > yes and some handbook or a better README that at least mentions the > correct syntax for the tools > I think adrian chadd mentioned something about that in an earlier message > > >> >> I've been using netmap-ipfw for a while and sure it lacks more flexbility >> like the ability to kipfw several ports, etc. But as it is right now, it's >> very stable and reliable for a preliminary code. Thats why I believe it >> should be on the base system. Thank you very much for the incredible >> technology. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG4HiT7_3p2f=XLqzr0DYyRsL2R8S0opXKkBHAPH%2B9c8kcw_Jg>