From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755382AbZHJPXW (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:23:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755294AbZHJPXV (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:23:21 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:57925 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755365AbZHJPXU (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:23:20 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: evb@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [evb] Re: [PATCH][RFC] net/bridge: add basic VEPA support Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:23:10 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.31-5-generic; KDE/4.2.98; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "'Stephen Hemminger'" , "'Fischer, Anna'" , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, kaber@trash.net, adobriyan@gmail.com, "'Or Gerlitz'" References: <0199E0D51A61344794750DC57738F58E67D2DCECBB@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net> <200908071329.44437.arnd@arndb.de> <005101ca1797$70dcf5b0$5296e110$@edu> In-Reply-To: <005101ca1797$70dcf5b0$5296e110$@edu> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]> =?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200908101723.10832.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19tMjzdJ+zANWS93lASAeBW40MH5Wp9y64crEU JVajfvxPTw9MvAi6dVmkXB8fCz2fCgvPNmnlowf+RbwvIzy+gB DBns3REh+QiaEMa95Yf+Q== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 07 August 2009, Paul Congdon (UC Davis) wrote: > > I don't think your scheme works too well because broadcast packet coming > from other interfaces on br0 would get replicated and sent across the wire > to ethB multiple times. Right, that won't work. So the bridge patch for the hairpin turn is still the best solution. Btw, how will that interact with the bride-netfilter (ebtables) setup? Can you apply any filters that work on current bridges also between two VEPA ports while doing the hairpin turn? Arnd <><