From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kdy1029@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-vn0-f51.google.com (mail-vn0-f51.google.com
 [209.85.216.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E1B5A29
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:32:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by vnbf190 with SMTP id f190so5890067vnb.10
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=TGXsxgXSZqJpeEKrJHsBcu3E5jN7876XwwWjPGUoKrw=;
 b=JnEVtUZbBEcgMpQbiqmdaFCCY3V19xBY0/NjVEwZleSV8Jj61CBCyqgZHMBNyQsDtH
 oNSUs3QTRCPnv7LPFIiT9BTWnfD2zJvqdbyt2ucFqKRQje45D0ssQrWPSkucJk8asmuF
 FjDNmGCxTNH0Kzf6Iq/d3z6WF3ybQOMl4IK+PeYr6YD5Fk+sumH5KofJzWlnskBU5GHv
 HMrJnqllaVFawAhmLDeSkzAdu1yoxAX+yUj1xTioWA9ObYsMRORXzS3qKRIY9vKzCrxq
 Qr9yHzXuKZbRyx+BQQkgk1aD8KIhkC3yYwqUBbs7nAf4TT24L1aA9GHDgLWPZpEnT1mG
 zOQQ==
X-Received: by 10.52.233.129 with SMTP id tw1mr13024398vdc.52.1435588372939;
 Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.162.83 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKBXKmDoev0QV8noK=Rk8aSTsyLrBd1mUiiCwVoq-j01LiYL0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOFzDNxfQuOKk6y3MObdCAOOaW4fe_0B3pxUnvYCEYPqAZG+rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKBXKmDoev0QV8noK=Rk8aSTsyLrBd1mUiiCwVoq-j01LiYL0A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daeyoung Kim <kdy1029@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:32:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOFzDNyox33TTDzixHmnwpdiNUn9gxp47UbbX8jPuiAgqK_stQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Keunhong Lee <dlrmsghd@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Receiving packets on only one port
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:32:54 -0000

Hi Keunhong,

Thank you for your help. Here is the network topology.

DNS Client - Switch 1 - Switch 2 - Switch 3 - DNS Server
                             |                                  |
                         port 0                          port 1

DPDK port 0 receives packets using from the Switch 1 port mirroring and
port 1 receives packets from the Switch 2 using port mirroring as well. As
I already said, when I send DNS packets, the wireshark simultaneously gets
all the packets on two ports. I'm sorry what I told you is incorrect. Using
my program with promiscuous mode, the port 0 receives only DNS queries from
the DNS client, but the port 1 receives only DNS replies from the DNS
server. I'd like to know why it happens.

Thank you very much!

Regards,
Daeyoung

2015-06-28 20:22 GMT-04:00 Keunhong Lee <dlrmsghd@gmail.com>:

> I don't know your situation exactly, but here are possible problems.
>
> 1. Your switch learned MAC addresses of two ports.
> 2. Your program bug.
> 3. l3fwd itself contains some bug.
> 4. You did not set all ports in promiscuous mode.
>
> You'd better try 'pktgen' application to test your environment.
>
> Keunhong.
>
>
>
> 2015-06-27 0:45 GMT+09:00 Daeyoung Kim <kdy1029@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm writing a packet capture program from the l3fwd. When I send DNS
>> packets, the wireshark simultaneously gets all the packets on two ports.
>> However, using my program with promiscuous mode, one port receives all the
>> packets, but the other port gets nothing. Do you know why it happens?
>> Could
>> it be network topology problem using DPDK, a DPDK design like forwarding
>> mechanism, or just my program bugs? Any comments would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daeyoung
>>
>
>