Re: Issues converting from bridge(4) to switch(4)

what is your ifconfig em0
ifconfig em1
?

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:07, John McGuigan <john@upperbound.ca> wrote:
>
> Howdy misc,
>
> I have an APU2 with the following configuration under 6.8:
>
> em0 = WAN
> em1 = bridge0 LAN
> em2 = bridge0 LAN
> vether = 10.0.0.1
>
> prometheus$ cat /etc/hostname.bridge0
> add vether0
> add em1
> add em2
> up
>
> prometheus$ cat /etc/hostname.vether0
> inet 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.255
>
> I have dhcpd listening on vether0 and it works just fine. I have a
> client connected to em1 and it can ping 10.0.0.1 with no issues.
>
> The trouble started when I wanted to implement a switch(4) instead
> of the bridge(4):
>
> I moved /etc/hostname.bridge0 to /etc/hostname.switch0
>
> prometheus$ cat /etc/switchd.conf
> device "/dev/switch0"
>
> switchd was enabled via rcctl
>
> When I rebooted the system the client on em1 no longer got a dhcp
> response and can't ping 10.0.0.1
>
> ifconfig snippet:
>
> switch0: flags=41<UP,RUNNING>
> index 6 llprio 3
> groups: switch
> datapath 0x264921d244b07e9a maxflow 10000 maxgroup 1000
> vether0 flags=0<>
> port 7 ifpriority 0 ifcost 0
> em1 flags=0<>
> port 2 ifpriority 0 ifcost 0
> em2 flags=0<>
> port 3 ifpriority 0 ifcost 0
> vether0: flags=8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> \
> mtu 1500
> lladdr fe:e1:ba:d0:0b:ca
> index 7 priority 0 llprio 3
> groups: vether
> media: Ethernet autoselect
> status: active
> inet 10.0.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.0.0.255
>
>
> With tcpdump on vether0 I see the arp requests from the client for
> 10.0.0.1 but vether0 doesn't respond.
>
> I see the same arp traffic on switch0 and em1 via tcpdump too.
>
> The switch seems to have learned the mac address of the client:
>
> prometheus$ switchctl show macs
> Switch Port Type Name Info
> 1 2 mac f0:de:f1:23:13:37 age 3s
>
> Unfortunately, I don't really know how to dig any deeper at this issue.
> Does anyone here see a glaring mistake or would be able to nudge me in
> a better direction?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>


--
Kindest regards,
Tom Smyth.