From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:11:46 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002F_01C8D123.552AADA0" From: "c.j" Subject: [Bridge] kernel doesn't support bridge with a ppp interface ? Reply-To: "c.j" List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C8D123.552AADA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi list, >From kernel code, I found it doesn't support bridge with a port that is = a ppp interface: # brctl addif br_name ppp0 # Invalid arg... Is there a patch or way to do it if I want to make a kernel bridge with = eth and ppp ports? Reg&Tks -- c.j ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C8D123.552AADA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi list,

From kernel code, I found it doesn't = support bridge=20 with a port that is a ppp interface:

# brctl addif br_name ppp0

# Invalid arg...

Is there a patch or way to do it if I = want to make=20 a kernel bridge with eth and ppp ports?

Reg&Tks

c.j

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C8D123.552AADA0-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:33:54 +0200 From: Marek Kierdelewicz Message-ID: <20080618073354.371e7fbd@catlap> In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] kernel doesn't support bridge with a ppp interface ? List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org >Hi list, Hi, >Is there a patch or way to do it if I want to make a kernel bridge with >eth and ppp ports? You can setup a tunnel with OpenVPN. You'd get a tap device on both sides which can be bridged with eth. Cheers, Marek Kierdelewicz From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: References: <20080618073354.371e7fbd@catlap> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:02:32 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "c.j" Subject: Re: [Bridge] kernel doesn't support bridge with a ppp interface ? Reply-To: "c.j" List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Marek Kierdelewicz Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org > You can setup a tunnel with OpenVPN. You'd get a tap device on > both sides which can be bridged with eth. Thanks. But maybe we don't want OpenVPN for VPN. Now I can't get why kernel do not support that. Have some disadvantages? Reg&Tks -- c.j From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:09:40 +0100 (BST) From: Malcolm Scott In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20080618073354.371e7fbd@catlap> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Bridge] kernel doesn't support bridge with a ppp interface ? List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "c.j" Cc: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org At 21:02 today, c.j wrote: >> You can setup a tunnel with OpenVPN. You'd get a tap device on >> both sides which can be bridged with eth. > Thanks. But maybe we don't want OpenVPN for VPN. Now I can't get why kernel > do not support that. Have some disadvantages? I'm not sure if this is even possible using standard protocols. Bridging is for Ethernet; PPP is not Ethernet. So this would require some sort of nonstandard Ethernet-over-PPP encapsulation protocol, and would only make sense if the PPP devices at both ends of the link talked this protocol. This sounds like a job for something outside the kernel, e.g. OpenVPN as suggested or a simpler Ethernet-over-IP tunnelling app. Malcolm -- Malcolm Scott Research Assistant University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48592CB7.7050103@sysnetsistemi.it> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:41:43 +0200 From: Francesco Dolcini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20080618073354.371e7fbd@catlap> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Bridge] kernel doesn't support bridge with a ppp interface ? List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Malcolm Scott Cc: "c.j" , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org Malcolm Scott wrote: > At 21:02 today, c.j wrote: > >>> You can setup a tunnel with OpenVPN. You'd get a tap device on >>> both sides which can be bridged with eth. >> Thanks. But maybe we don't want OpenVPN for VPN. Now I can't get why kernel >> do not support that. Have some disadvantages? > > I'm not sure if this is even possible using standard protocols. Bridging is > for Ethernet; PPP is not Ethernet. So this would require some sort of > nonstandard Ethernet-over-PPP encapsulation protocol, and would only make see standard rfc3518, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3518.txt, I think there is a (old?) patch flying around for this ... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dylan Hall In-Reply-To: <48592CB7.7050103@sysnetsistemi.it> References: <20080618073354.371e7fbd@catlap> <48592CB7.7050103@sysnetsistemi.it> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-5jM0ScCV2VyhMehlY8no" Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:31:59 +1200 Message-Id: <1213846319.2342.17.camel@collymore.citylink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Bridge] kernel doesn't support bridge with a ppp interface ? List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: "c.j" --=-5jM0ScCV2VyhMehlY8no Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We use vtun which is a userland option, a little slow but offers rate-limiting and some other nice to have features. When we require the lowest possible overhead option, we use the etherip kernel patches. Dylan On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 17:41 +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > Malcolm Scott wrote: > > At 21:02 today, c.j wrote: > > > >>> You can setup a tunnel with OpenVPN. You'd get a tap device on > >>> both sides which can be bridged with eth. > >> Thanks. But maybe we don't want OpenVPN for VPN. Now I can't get why kernel > >> do not support that. Have some disadvantages? > > > > I'm not sure if this is even possible using standard protocols. Bridging is > > for Ethernet; PPP is not Ethernet. So this would require some sort of > > nonstandard Ethernet-over-PPP encapsulation protocol, and would only make > see standard rfc3518, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3518.txt, I think there > is a (old?) patch flying around for this ... > > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge mailing list > Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge --=-5jM0ScCV2VyhMehlY8no Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We use vtun which is a userland option, a little slow but offers rate-limiting and some other nice to have features.

When we require the lowest possible overhead option, we use the etherip kernel patches.

Dylan

On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 17:41 +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote:

Malcolm Scott wrote:
> At 21:02 today, c.j wrote:
> 
>>> You can setup a tunnel with OpenVPN. You'd get a tap device on
>>> both sides which can be bridged with eth.
>> Thanks. But maybe we don't want OpenVPN for VPN. Now I can't get why kernel
>> do not support that. Have some disadvantages?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is even possible using standard protocols.  Bridging is 
> for Ethernet; PPP is not Ethernet.  So this would require some sort of 
> nonstandard Ethernet-over-PPP encapsulation protocol, and would only make 
see standard rfc3518, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3518.txt, I think there 
is a (old?) patch  flying around for this ...


_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge

--=-5jM0ScCV2VyhMehlY8no-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dylan Hall In-Reply-To: <56CC982A1CAD43C483A8F97167A6094C@vpn.com> References: <20080618073354.371e7fbd@catlap> <48592CB7.7050103@sysnetsistemi.it> <1213846319.2342.17.camel@collymore.citylink.co.nz> <56CC982A1CAD43C483A8F97167A6094C@vpn.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-+S4DVjtChw5wT4kCcPmf" Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:28:23 +1200 Message-Id: <1213914503.16230.22.camel@collymore.citylink.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Bridge] kernel doesn't support bridge with a ppp interface ? List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "c.j" , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-ppp@vger.kernel.org --=-+S4DVjtChw5wT4kCcPmf Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit It's a little unclear what your setup is, but let me take a guess and make some suggestions :) 1) Assuming a setup something like the following LAN A --- (ETH) [LINUX A] (PPP) [LINUX B] (ETH) --- LAN B In the above, I would assume the goal is to join (bridge) LAN A and LAN B together? You could configure basic IP across the PPP link so that the two linux boxes can reach each other. You then configure something like vtun or etherip to run over the IP/PPP link between the two linux boxes. Finally you setup bridges at each end, the result would look something like: LAN A --- (ETH){BR on LINUX A}(TUN) --- (PPP) --- (TUN){BR on LINUX B}(ETH) --- LAN B The etherip has the caveat that it doesn't support fragmentation so will only work if the PPP link supports a large MTU, say 1540 or greater. 2) A less likely scenario is PPP Client --- (ETH)[LINUX](ETH) --- PPP Server In the above you want to get your PPP session going through a linux box in the middle. If the PPP is PPPoE, adding the ETH's to a bridge on the linux box should be sufficient. If it's some other variant of PPP you might be able to use L2TP to tunnel the PPP between end points. I've seen this done in a DSL/BRAS environment where the BRAS wasn't directly attached to the DSLAMs. I suspect this is far from straight forward. Dylan On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 23:49 +0800, c.j wrote: > > > >We use vtun which is a userland option, a little slow but offers > rate-limiting and some other nice to have features. > > >When we require the lowest possible overhead option, we use the > etherip kernel patches. > > Thanks for your kind suggestion. Whether the etherip patches can > transmit ppp packet? Since I'm not familiar with them , I need some > time to read them if so. > > Regards~ > > -- > c.j --=-+S4DVjtChw5wT4kCcPmf Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's a little unclear what your setup is, but let me take a guess and make some suggestions :)

1) Assuming a setup something like the following

LAN A --- (ETH) [LINUX A] (PPP) [LINUX B] (ETH) --- LAN B

In the above, I would assume the goal is to join (bridge) LAN A and LAN B together?

You could configure basic IP across the PPP link so that the two linux boxes can reach each other.

You then configure something like vtun or etherip to run over the IP/PPP link between the two linux boxes.

Finally you setup bridges at each end, the result would look something like:

LAN A --- (ETH){BR on LINUX A}(TUN) --- (PPP) --- (TUN){BR on LINUX B}(ETH) --- LAN B

The etherip has the caveat that it doesn't support fragmentation so will only work if the PPP link supports a large MTU, say 1540 or greater.

2) A less likely scenario is

PPP Client --- (ETH)[LINUX](ETH) --- PPP Server

In the above you want to get your PPP session going through a linux box in the middle.

If the PPP is PPPoE, adding the ETH's to a bridge on the linux box should be sufficient.

If it's some other variant of PPP you might be able to use L2TP to tunnel the PPP between end points. I've seen this done in a DSL/BRAS environment where the BRAS wasn't directly attached to the DSLAMs. I suspect this is far from straight forward.

Dylan

On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 23:49 +0800, c.j wrote:

>We use vtun which is a userland option, a little slow but offers rate-limiting and some other nice to have features.

>When we require the lowest possible overhead option, we use the etherip kernel patches.

Thanks for your kind suggestion. Whether the etherip patches can transmit ppp packet? Since I'm not familiar with them , I need some time to read them if so.

Regards~

--

c.j

--=-+S4DVjtChw5wT4kCcPmf--