From nobody Mon Jul 04 18:25:26 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-arm@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF791C53D36 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 18:25:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "www.zefox.com", Issuer "www.zefox.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LcDkg59kDz4rr0 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 18:25:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 264IPR0U004699 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Jul 2022 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.16.1/8.15.2/Submit) id 264IPR2M004698; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 11:25:26 -0700 From: bob prohaska To: Karl Denninger Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 13.1R problems on Pi3 Message-ID: <20220704182526.GB1771@www.zefox.net> References: <20220704003639.GA1165@www.zefox.net> <8820A9EC-A25E-4D0A-9F8F-52114E58B66F@yahoo.com> <6c377413-9430-54d2-3f92-1215055ca30a@denninger.net> <20220704152834.GA1771@www.zefox.net> <7ce87eef-ded5-8b00-3f11-14407b8af78d@denninger.net> List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arm List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7ce87eef-ded5-8b00-3f11-14407b8af78d@denninger.net> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4LcDkg59kDz4rr0 X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of fbsd@www.zefox.net has no SPF policy when checking 50.1.20.27) smtp.mailfrom=fbsd@www.zefox.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.10 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; WWW_DOT_DOMAIN(0.50)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.997]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zefox.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arm]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7065, ipnet:50.1.16.0/20, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 12:17:15PM -0400, Karl Denninger wrote: > > On 7/4/2022 11:28, bob prohaska wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 03, 2022 at 10:36:35PM -0400, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > > Can any sense be made of the few ping responses obtained when ntp > > is coming up? It's looks as if something happens after ntp runs > > that blocks subsequent network traffic, but why starting an outbound > > ping should partly unblock things is obscure to me. > > Yes.?? The odds are reasonably high that there is confusion as to which MAC > address maps to which device.?? This implies there's a loop between the two > switches (e.g. there is more than one way for packets to get into and out of > each said switch to the other) or the two devices are claiming the same MAC > address and thus when each "speaks" and performs ARP it "grabs" the map > which works until the next one pipes up and it grabs it. > Looks like that's the problem. There's only one cable between switches, but here's what I get from ifconfig on each host: On the machine running 13.1-R attached to switch 2: bob@www:~ % ifconfig lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384 options=680003 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 groups: lo nd6 options=21 ue0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 options=80009 >>>>>>> ether b8:27:eb:71:46:4e inet 50.1.20.28 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 50.1.20.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) status: active nd6 options=29 bob@www:~ % hostname www.zefox.org bob@www:~ % bob@www:~ % uname -a FreeBSD www.zefox.org 13.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 13.1-RELEASE releng/13.1-n250148-fc952ac2212 GENERIC arm64 bob@www:~ % On the machine running an updated stable/13 system attached to switch 1: bob@pelorus:~ % ifconfig lo0: flags=8049 metric 0 mtu 16384 options=680003 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 groups: lo nd6 options=21 ue0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 options=80009 >>>>>> ether b8:27:eb:71:46:4e inet 50.1.20.24 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 50.1.20.255 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) status: active nd6 options=29 bob@pelorus:~ % hostname pelorus.zefox.org bob@pelorus:~ % bob@pelorus:~ % uname -a FreeBSD pelorus.zefox.org 13.1-STABLE FreeBSD 13.1-STABLE #6 stable/13-n251601-2353343b324: Sun Jul 3 21:43:04 PDT 2022 bob@pelorus.zefox.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/arm64.aarch64/sys/GENERIC arm64 Thinking it over, I added the extra switch some time ago and didn't immediately notice any problems. Both Pi3s started out on the first switch (NetGear), with no obvdious problems. Later I probably moved one Pi3 to the second switch (D-Link) and started to notice troubles. Does this story make sense? > Each interface device from the factory is supposed to have a unique MAC > address.?? This can, for most interfaces, be overridden (modern Android > phones "randomize" it if told to as a "security" measure) but for obvious > reasons doing that can lead to problems. Collisions where multiple devices > are using the same MAC will lead to exactly the sort of thing you're seeing > because the switch is sending the packets to the wrong place. > > I've got a decent number of Pis of everything back to the "2" here and most > of the time several of them are on my network at once.?? I've not seen this > problem but I wouldn't exclude that both are claiming the same MAC and, if > so, that's what's causing the problem. > [example ifconfig output snipped] > > That MUST be unique on your LAN; the prefix (first three octets) is a vendor > code /*and the last three should never be duplicated by a vendor. */If you > are not setting it in /etc/rc.conf or elsewhere and there /are /duplicates > then a very bad thing happened when those units were manufactured -- set one > of them to something else. > Any pointers to MAC-setting methods appreciated..... Thanks very much for writing! bob prohaska