Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 1/3] if.h: add IFF_BRIDGE_RESTRICTED flag

[Antonio Quartulli <antonio@open-mesh.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1534 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 01:46:09PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:54:34 +0200
> Antonio Quartulli <antonio@open-mesh.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jamal, all,
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:49:17 -0700, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > On 13-04-09 09:51 AM, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > > Does this work at the bridge level? A packet entering a port and going out from
> > > > another one can be affected by tc/mark?
> > > 
> > > Yes of course. And on any construct that looks like a netdev (tunnels etc).
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks for your hints. After having struggled a bit I found out how to do it
> > using ebtables and the mark target :)
> > 
> > Thanks a Lot!
> > 
> Come back again, though. The ebtables method offers more flexibility which can
> be a good or bad thing...

I just realised that :)

By installing ebtables (meaning modules + userspace tool) my iperf test result
drops from 81Mbps to 66Mbps: former without, latter with ebtables module enabled.
I did this test between two devices connected with Fast Ethernet.

I thought that most of the code is in netfilter, so shared with iptables, hence
I expected a reasonable overhead why this is much worse.

Does anybody have a clue about this? I should probably start a new thread on the
netfilter mailing list.

However this problem makes ebtables unusable at all.

Suggestions are welcome :)

Cheers,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli

..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]