netmap-ipfw on em0 em1

[Luigi Rizzo]

The code on code.google.com/p/netmap-ipfw/ works well for me
on physical interfaces.

For using the nics many of your examples show that you are not using the
various programs correctly. There is clearly a
mismatch between what this code does and your expectations,
and there isn't much i can do to fix that.

I acknowledge that the code might have rough edges and poor error
reporting, but it is what it is.

cheers
luigi


On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Evandro Nunes <evandronunes12 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Patrick Tracanelli <
>> eksffa at freebsdbrasil.com.br> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, what you are doing wrong is much more simple than you expect.
>>>
>>> > # ./kipfw em1 em2 > & /tmp/kipfw.log &
>>> > [1] 66583
>>>
>>> Just run ./kipfw netmap:em1 netmap:em2 and this will probably work.
>>>
>>> Please remember to redirect kipfw output to somewhere you are not
>>> reading only *after* you are sure the output is showing errors. If you
>>> could read the output you would probably get something like “error opening
>>> em0” or something like that coming netmap.
>>>
>>
>> hello dear patrick
>> thank you, yes it did work now
>> at least it is counting packets
>>
>> but things are still weird, even though I have only count and allow
>> rules, and yes they are counting packets, when I run kipfw, every packet on
>> em1 and em2 gets dropped immediately. no matter they are allow rules
>> counting packets, packets get dropped and machine-A gets completely
>> isolated from machine-C
>>
>> any further help is appreciated
>>
>
>
> hello everybody,
>
> one clear and simple question: is anyone actually using netmap-ipfw on
> real NICs out there? or has anyone ever used?
>
> because every documentation I read, or video I watch, is based on vale
> NICs, not real ones; documentation is also not clear about or in fact
> existant regarding real NICs (this is not a complaint, I know netmap-ipfw
> is experimental and I dont expect it to be rich yet, but I am talking about
> any sort of doc, readme files, commit messages, mailing list excerpts...),
> not even the syntax netmap:NIC was clearly mentioned before I was told to
> do that
>
> I read the guy from BSDRP Project mentioning he got down on traffic after
> enabling netmap-ipfw, I have read the same thing from a guy mr Meyer, and
> from a couple others in different dates (but mostly in this list here) and
> everyone seem to gave given up.
>
> I started looking at the source code for extras/ and stuff but I am no
> hacker, and I could not figure out what I could be doing wrong. This is why
> I ask if anyone actually runs netmap-ipfw on real NICs. Im not asking for a
> recipe, Im just trying to figure out if I am focusing on testing something
> that will never work because it lacks a usable piece of code to make it run
> on real NICs (and I am not capable of coding it myself), or if I still
> doing something wrong...
>
> using netmap-ipfw with VALE ports is shows a very different behavior and
> works as expected and documented, not on real NICs has a complete different
> behavior, dropping everything even though it counts packets on an "allow"
> rule...
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------+-------------------------------
 Prof. Luigi RIZZO, rizzo at iet.unipi.it  . Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione
 http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/        . Universita` di Pisa
 TEL      +39-050-2211611               . via Diotisalvi 2
 Mobile   +39-338-6809875               . 56122 PISA (Italy)
-----------------------------------------+-------------------------------