Re: [Bridge] bridge, vlan and *no* stp/bpdu

[Jonathan Thibault <jonathan@navigue.com>]

Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> Configurations like this can get tricky at times.  Though it seems to
> make perfect sense to put two interfaces like this in the same bridge
> the current setup of the linux networking stack makes it hard to get
> things working sometimes.  Let me make sure I can understand what you
> are trying to accomplish.  Do you want to prevent traffic from vlan 2
> and vlan 3 from ever talking while still allowing them to talk to the
> gateway?  Will you want vlan 2 and vlan3 to communicate with each
> other at all?
>   
Well, the plan is to let the vlans communicate together 'freely', for
now.  I'm essentially using the vlan tag as a way to 'figure out' where
the packet is coming from.  The network spans a little over 100km in a
large, flat /22 subnet.  I wish I could do this the usual way with
subnets and what not, but we don't really control the routing and
gateway side of things.  So basically, we want to assign a vlan to each
branch of the network and avoid having to add a new NIC to the bridge
each time we add a new branch.  Feeding it a trunk into it and adding
vlan interfaces as needed works better for us since bandwidth is not
really the limiting factor.  Well, it would be better if it worked :P

Now I fully understand that it's not how 90% of people would approach
this, including myself, but it's the only option we have given what's on
either side of the bridge, which we can't change right now.  The
alternative is having a switch split the trunk and then feed that into
real (as opposed to vlan) interfaces on the bridge, wich I haven't fully
tested yet but am sure would work fine.

I'd rather focus on solving the bridged vlan thing though, it just might
be useful to someone else someday and definitely falls into the 'should
work' category as far as I'm concerned.

Jonathan

P.S.:  Sorry, forgot to reply to the list.