From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <54181A93.2070604@lab.ntt.co.jp> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:10:11 +0900 From: Toshiaki Makita MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1410554691-18467-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <1410554691-18467-3-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <5415B27A.2000508@gmail.com> <5417011D.2000301@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5417011D.2000301@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH 2/3] bridge: Add filtering support for default_pvid List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: vyasevic@redhat.com, Toshiaki Makita , Vladislav Yasevich , netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org On 2014/09/16 0:09, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > On 09/14/2014 11:21 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >> (14/09/13 (土) 5:44), Vladislav Yasevich wrote: >>> Currently when vlan filtering is turned on on the bridge, the bridge >>> will drop all traffic untill the user configures the filter. This >>> isn't very nice for ports that don't care about vlans and just >>> want untagged traffic. >>> >>> A concept of a default_pvid was recently introduced. This patch >>> adds filtering support for default_pvid. Now, ports that don't >>> care about vlans and don't define there own filter will belong >>> to the VLAN of the default_pvid and continue to receive untagged >>> traffic. >> >> If user sets pvid, then vid 1 (default_pvid) will become non-pvid but >> still not be filtered, right? > > Right. > >> vlan_bitmap of default_pvid shouldn't be cleared on setting pvid? > > I can see arguments for both. Just because the user wishes to set a > different pvid may not always mean that vlan associated with default pvid > shouldn't be filtered. I think it's at user's discretion. I hesitate > to do too many things automatically. On second thought, I agree with you. It's reasonable that what default_pvid should do is only to set pvid on adding a bridge/port. My another concern is how we can disable default_pvid, since this feature is originally non-existent. Thanks, Toshiaki Makita From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toshiaki Makita Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bridge: Add filtering support for default_pvid Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:10:11 +0900 Message-ID: <54181A93.2070604@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <1410554691-18467-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <1410554691-18467-3-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <5415B27A.2000508@gmail.com> <5417011D.2000301@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org To: vyasevic@redhat.com, Toshiaki Makita , Vladislav Yasevich , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5417011D.2000301@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 2014/09/16 0:09, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > On 09/14/2014 11:21 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >> (14/09/13 (土) 5:44), Vladislav Yasevich wrote: >>> Currently when vlan filtering is turned on on the bridge, the bridge >>> will drop all traffic untill the user configures the filter. This >>> isn't very nice for ports that don't care about vlans and just >>> want untagged traffic. >>> >>> A concept of a default_pvid was recently introduced. This patch >>> adds filtering support for default_pvid. Now, ports that don't >>> care about vlans and don't define there own filter will belong >>> to the VLAN of the default_pvid and continue to receive untagged >>> traffic. >> >> If user sets pvid, then vid 1 (default_pvid) will become non-pvid but >> still not be filtered, right? > > Right. > >> vlan_bitmap of default_pvid shouldn't be cleared on setting pvid? > > I can see arguments for both. Just because the user wishes to set a > different pvid may not always mean that vlan associated with default pvid > shouldn't be filtered. I think it's at user's discretion. I hesitate > to do too many things automatically. On second thought, I agree with you. It's reasonable that what default_pvid should do is only to set pvid on adding a bridge/port. My another concern is how we can disable default_pvid, since this feature is originally non-existent. Thanks, Toshiaki Makita