6100 lost its ix[0-3] interfaces
-
Similar issue for me. Any workaround?
-
The 6100 should never not see the ix NICs. They are in the SoC and cannot be disabled. What exactly are you seeing?
-
@stephenw10 I already raised a TAC. I basically get the same error as OP. Tried power cycling and boot from USB-installer.
They're not in the ifconfig output and bootup gives errors like this:
Feb 5 22:46:21 pfSense kernel: ix0: <Intel(R) X553 L (1GbE)> mem 0x80200000-0x803fffff,0x80600000-0x80603fff at device 0.1 on pci10 Feb 5 22:46:21 pfSense kernel: ix0: Hardware initialization failed Feb 5 22:46:21 pfSense kernel: ix0: IFDI_ATTACH_PRE failed 5 Feb 5 22:46:21 pfSense kernel: device_attach: ix0 attach returned 5They are present as PCI devices but either not in a usable state or the system doesn't know what they are:
none6@pci0:3:0:0: class=0x020000 rev=0x11 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x1306 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0x0000 vendor = 'Intel Corporation' class = network subclass = ethernet bar [10] = type Prefetchable Memory, range 64, base 0x80a00000, size 2097152, enabled bar [20] = type Prefetchable Memory, range 64, base 0x80c04000, size 16384, enabled none7@pci0:3:0:1: class=0x020000 rev=0x11 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x1306 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0x0000 vendor = 'Intel Corporation' class = network subclass = ethernet bar [10] = type Prefetchable Memory, range 64, base 0x80800000, size 2097152, enabled bar [20] = type Prefetchable Memory, range 64, base 0x80c00000, size 16384, enabled none8@pci0:2:0:0: class=0x020000 rev=0x11 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x15e5 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0x0000 vendor = 'Intel Corporation' device = 'Ethernet Connection X553 1GbE' class = network subclass = ethernet bar [10] = type Prefetchable Memory, range 64, base 0x80400000, size 2097152, enabled bar [20] = type Prefetchable Memory, range 64, base 0x80604000, size 16384, enabled none9@pci0:2:0:1: class=0x020000 rev=0x11 hdr=0x00 vendor=0x8086 device=0x15e5 subvendor=0x8086 subdevice=0x0000 vendor = 'Intel Corporation' device = 'Ethernet Connection X553 1GbE' class = network subclass = ethernet bar [10] = type Prefetchable Memory, range 64, base 0x80200000, size 2097152, enabled bar [20] = type Prefetchable Memory, range 64, base 0x80600000, size 16384, enabled -
To me, after reading about others with similar issues (non netgate HW), this is a firmware glitch. In those cases this has been resolved through a forced NIC firmware upgrade.
-
Hmm. I assume it's out of warranty?
You could try booting Intel's firmware update tool and see if it sees the NICs or offers an available update. I've never tried that on a 6100 though.
-
try booting Intel's firmware update tool
which tool is that @stephenw10 ? is it this? https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/19358/non-volatile-memory-nvm-update-utility-for-intel-ethernet-network-adapter-x550-series.html
-
Hmm X553 is not X550. But I see it's in the release notes so might be worth trying. However I don't see it in the update itself so....
-
Yeah not sure either. The Release Notes PDF has:

and extracting
X550_NVMUpdatePackage_v3_70_FreeBSD.tar.gzand executingstrings ./X550/FreeBSDx64/nvmupdate64e | grep 553yields some results:X553 Intel(R) Ethernet Connection X553 1GbE Intel(R) Ethernet Connection X553 10 GbE SFP+ Intel(R) Ethernet Connection X553 QSFP+ Intel(R) Ethernet Connection X553 Backplane Intel(R) Ethernet Connection X553/X557-AT 10GBASE-T Intel(R) X553 Virtual Function Intel(R) Ethernet Connection X553 1 GbE -
Ill give it a try later this evening. Thanks!
-
@slackie Let us know how it goes. I've been sitting in the weeds watching this thread with interest.
Ted
-
There's no update cfg for the X553 PCI device ID in that file so something else is required....
-
@stephenw10 Hmm. Yeah there's some further discussion about this over on r/Netgate, including comments from Jim Thompson (gonzopancho).
-
Ah right. Yup that's what I'm seeing. It wouldn't entirely surprise me to find there is no NVM update for X553 since its on-board the SoC. It's not a normal NIC in that sense.
-
OP, Here. @stephenw10 and @slackie, support determined it was a hardware failure. Unfortunately, it was no longer under warranty.
-
Unfortunately it didn't work. I give up...