From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: ebtables mac update Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:54:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4C2BD923.9020503@riverviewtech.net> References: <1277808205.3791.17.camel@casper.meteor.dp.ua> <4C29E8B4.5060205@plouf.fr.eu.org> <1277821770.4006.33.camel@casper.meteor.dp.ua> <4C2B6536.2060401@plouf.fr.eu.org> <1277941138.11021.20.camel@casper.meteor.dp.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1277941138.11021.20.camel@casper.meteor.dp.ua> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter =F0=CF=CB=CF=D4=C9=CC=C5=CE=CB=CF =EB=CF=D3=D4=C9=CB wrote: > Funny thing is that the problem persist. Tonight I've made some tests= =20 > with 782M. I've connected two computers in my office (win7 and linux)= =20 > through this pair directly. I seccessfully tested ping both=20 > directions, then switched them so that each crossed the bridge and=20 > was unable to ping. When you switch then, do the Linux and Windows systems know that their=20 network cable has been unplugged? If they do, they will very likely flush their caches. If the problem persists after the Linux and Windows systems flush their= =20 cache, I'm strongly thinking that the problem is with the DSL bridges. > Regarding this I can surely tell (this is all about 782M pair) that=20 > after box crossing the bridge MAC-port table is not updating (how it=20 > should be if it were switch's logic). Packets with srcMAC of crossed=20 > box CAN cross the bridge, but with dstMAC of crossed box CANNOT cross= =20 > the bridge. That really sounds like the something is not forwarding traffic b/c it=20 still thinks that the destination MAC is on the local side. Please clarify, when you ran your test, did you try trading sides of th= e=20 Linux bridge individually or the Linux bridge in combination with the=20 DSL bridge? Can you try repeating your test on either side of the Linux bridge? Grant. . . .