@derelict
is worked thanx

@derelict Thought i would give this another shot on the latest code v21.01-588~tnsr_v21.07_1~g31b3e823e, but to no avail, but i did find somting interesting using the show hardware-interface command in vppctl it is seeing the non working interface VirtualFunctionEthernet6/0/0 MTU at 9206 and the admin up flag is not present and this error [rte_eth_dev_start[port:1, errno:-22]: Unknown error -22]. any Ideas how to look/debug further into this or do yo know what this error is?

I have also included working interface VirtualFunctionEthernet5/0/0 for comparison

vpp# sh hardware-interfaces
Name Idx Link Hardware
VirtualFunctionEthernet5/0/0 1 up VirtualFunctionEthernet5/0/0
Link speed: 10 Gbps
RX Queues:
queue thread mode
0 main (0) polling
Ethernet address 02:09:c0:99:4a:be
Intel 82599 VF
carrier up full duplex mtu 1500
flags: admin-up pmd maybe-multiseg subif tx-offload intel-phdr-cksum rx-ip4-cksum
rx: queues 1 (max 2), desc 1024 (min 32 max 4096 align 8)
tx: queues 1 (max 2), desc 1024 (min 32 max 4096 align 8)
pci: device 8086:10ed subsystem 8086:000c address 0000:05:00.00 numa 0
max rx packet len: 9728
promiscuous: unicast off all-multicast on
vlan offload: strip off filter off qinq off
rx offload avail: vlan-strip ipv4-cksum udp-cksum tcp-cksum vlan-filter
jumbo-frame scatter keep-crc rss-hash
rx offload active: ipv4-cksum jumbo-frame scatter
tx offload avail: vlan-insert ipv4-cksum udp-cksum tcp-cksum sctp-cksum
tcp-tso multi-segs
tx offload active: udp-cksum tcp-cksum multi-segs
rss avail: ipv4-tcp ipv4-udp ipv4 ipv6-tcp-ex ipv6-udp-ex ipv6-tcp
ipv6-udp ipv6-ex ipv6
rss active: ipv4-tcp ipv6-tcp-ex ipv6-tcp ipv6-udp ipv6-ex
tx burst function: ixgbe_xmit_pkts
rx burst function: ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts_vec

tx frames ok 86 tx bytes ok 7258 rx frames ok 1325 rx bytes ok 191694 extended stats: rx_good_packets 1325 tx_good_packets 86 rx_good_bytes 191694 tx_good_bytes 7258 rx_multicast_packets 1550

VirtualFunctionEthernet6/0/0 2 up VirtualFunctionEthernet6/0/0
Link speed: 10 Gbps
RX Queues:
queue thread mode
0 main (0) polling
Ethernet address 02:09:c0:c1:84:fc
Intel 82599 VF
carrier up full duplex mtu 9206
flags: pmd maybe-multiseg subif tx-offload intel-phdr-cksum rx-ip4-cksum
rx: queues 1 (max 2), desc 1024 (min 32 max 4096 align 8)
tx: queues 1 (max 2), desc 1024 (min 32 max 4096 align 8)
pci: device 8086:10ed subsystem 8086:000c address 0000:06:00.00 numa 0
max rx packet len: 9728
promiscuous: unicast off all-multicast off
vlan offload: strip off filter on qinq off
rx offload avail: vlan-strip ipv4-cksum udp-cksum tcp-cksum vlan-filter
jumbo-frame scatter keep-crc rss-hash
rx offload active: ipv4-cksum jumbo-frame scatter
tx offload avail: vlan-insert ipv4-cksum udp-cksum tcp-cksum sctp-cksum
tcp-tso multi-segs
tx offload active: udp-cksum tcp-cksum multi-segs
rss avail: ipv4-tcp ipv4-udp ipv4 ipv6-tcp-ex ipv6-udp-ex ipv6-tcp
ipv6-udp ipv6-ex ipv6
rss active: ipv4-tcp ipv6-tcp-ex ipv6-tcp ipv6-udp ipv6-ex
tx burst function: ixgbe_xmit_pkts
rx burst function: ixgbe_recv_pkts

rx frames ok 4294966922 rx bytes ok 68719442425 Errors: rte_eth_dev_start[port:1, errno:-22: Unknown error -22

Thanks.

@gabacho4 Thanks!

@jbelthoff said in CLI syntax error: "int WAN": Unknown command:

Active Interface ens19

Okay nevermind, I see I have to remove the "Active" interfaces...

@insanesplash I get yeah, my reply is pure guess work on my part as well ;) Since I have no insight to who or how many etc. are actually using TNSR in large scale environments or even small ones.. It could be 1000's it could be 1..

I was more just commenting/guessing to why you don't see many posts about it here on the forums. I have not done any personal testing/playing with it as of yet myself - because well I don't have the lab to do it justice for one ;)

Seems the video link on the twitter post no longer works.

@williwinkie You can route between VRFs in some cases. Can you explain what you are looking to accomplish in more detail? I have not spent significant time with sonicwalls.

@gabacho4 Yes, there is an open feature request for the same. No timeline that I can see.

@ulrik said in Failover or load-balancing of two dhcp WAN links ?:

o you know if it is possible to set the priority of the default route assigned by the dhcp client?

Not at this time, no. I have submitted a feature request for this capability.

@derelict Too late :-) i decided to reinstall and create the host interface during install.