Bridge, networking, wireless cards, and ypbind.... (*sigh*
paul at pathiakis.com
Sun Jun 11 04:12:43 UTC 2006
On Saturday 10 June 2006 01:00, you wrote:
> Paul Pathiakis wrote:
> > my rc.conf has:
> > ifconfig_ath0="inet 192.168.1.24 netmask 0xffffff00 ssid my_ap mode 11g
> > mediaopt adhoc"
> > defautrouter="192.168.1.12"
> > nis_client_enable="YES"
> > ifconfig -a shows:
> > ath0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> > inet6 fe80::213:46ff:fe94:75c3%ath0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
> > ether 00:13:46:94:75:c3
> > media: IEEE 802.11 Wireless Ethernet autoselect mode 11g <adhoc>
> > status: associated
> > ssid my_ap channel 3 bssid 02:13:46:94:75:c5
> > authmode OPEN privacy OFF txpowmax 36 protmode CTS burst bintval
> > 100
> > I assume that since the bssid shows the MAC address of AP, it is bound.
> Why isn't the ath0 card in promisc mode? I thought it pretty much has
> to be in order for the bridge to work (both NICs in my bridge stay in
> promisc mode).
> I'm not sure if you're using "device if_bridge", or "options BRIDGE",
> but if it's the former, and you're running traffic through pf, take note
> of the warning in the if_bridge man page:
> The bridge may not forward fragments that have been reassembled by a
> packet filter. In pf(4) fragment reassembly can be disabled in the
> scrub option.
> That's just my guesses for places to look based on the info you described.
Sorry, but nothing more to report.
I am using if_bridge as my rc.conf shows I clone the interface and create the
bridge. This autoloads the if_bridge.ko as shown:
1 12 0xc0400000 534520 kernel
2 1 0xc0935000 121e4 geom_mirror.ko
3 1 0xc0948000 10958 if_ath.ko
4 3 0xc0959000 26b60 ath_hal.ko
5 2 0xc0980000 40ac ath_rate.ko
6 1 0xc0985000 58554 acpi.ko
7 1 0xc3567000 8000 if_bridge.ko
8 1 0xc3661000 4000 logo_saver.ko
Pretty much I copied this from the ath man page:
ifconfig ath0 inet up ssid my_ap media DS/11Mbps mediaopt hostap
ifconfig bridge0 create
ifconfig bridge0 addm ath0 addm fxp0
Seems that once I rebooted, both interfaces came up in promiscuous mode, so
that's a no go now. I still believe it to be a frag/UDP/RPC issue.
Wes do you or anyone else have any further insight?
More information about the freebsd-questions