From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamal Hadi Salim Subject: Re: RFC: bridge get fdb by bridge device Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:08:55 -0500 Message-ID: <52FA9167.2040305@mojatatu.com> References: <52F21F72.2090405@mojatatu.com> <52F29747.7040008@redhat.com> <52F3CF76.9090404@mojatatu.com> <52F3E357.4040006@redhat.com> <52F79990.3000400@mojatatu.com> <52F8FEF1.60407@redhat.com> <52FA58E9.906@mojatatu.com> <52FA6A24.3030402@redhat.com> <52FA84FA.2030608@mojatatu.com> <52FA8F8B.3080500@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Scott Feldman , John Fastabend To: vyasevic@redhat.com, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179]:36388 "EHLO mail-ig0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753296AbaBKVI5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:08:57 -0500 Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c10so9714607igq.0 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:08:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52FA8F8B.3080500@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/11/14 16:00, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > On 02/11/2014 03:15 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > > Because it just a multi-function nic that isn't tagged with any > kine of bridge flag. As John said, this might be useful, but not > done yet. > Ok, fair enough. Someone should send a patch - John perhaps. > > Not directly. However, if you put a layered software device in between > (vlan, bond, macvlan), then you can add that device to another bridge. > In fact, people do that to get GVRP working with VMs. > Do you recall the reasoning behind it? >> It certainly has some equivalent semantics (looks at dst MAC then >> picks the port). Possible to add Vlans as well? > > I suppose. You can do things like: > # ip link add link eth0 dev vlan100 protocol 8021Q id 100 > # ip link add link vlan0 dev mac100 type macvlan > > Now, you have a macvlan (mac100) that will only receive vlan100 traffic. > Expressing this in terms of fdb would be a bit difficult since each > interface is separate and eth0 doesn't really know about the stack. > It would require quite a lot of code. > nice. >> Why dont we tag such a thing as a bridge then? >> > > Because they are not always a bridge. It could be just a nic capable of > mac filtering. > I think in one of the modes it is merely a filter. But you turn on this other feature it is a bridge. > > Didn't realize it has different connotation for vxlan. The you probably > don't want to include and support in the bridge fdb show command. Thats what i thought you said earlier ;-> cheers, jamal