From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: Is it valid to add a macvlan virtual interface to a bridge? If so, there seems to be a bug with it. Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:26:08 -0800 Message-ID: <20081205162608.43ab0864@s6510> References: <20081204203352.9740c60e.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <4937D494.8080202@trash.net> <4939683D.40406@candelatech.com> <20081206092448.0c83d606.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <4939C269.4010609@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mark Smith , Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Greear Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:44373 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754546AbYLFA0O (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:26:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4939C269.4010609@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:08:09 -0800 Ben Greear wrote: > Mark Smith wrote: > > Hi, > > > Would handling of frames for promiscuous macvlan interfaces be quite > > similar to handling of incoming broadcast and multicast frames e.g. > > for an incoming frame, walk through the list of macvlan interfaces (or > > a separate list of promiscuous macvlan interfaces) that are currently in > > promiscuous mode, and hand them a copy of the incoming frame? > > That could probably work. > > >> You might try using a pair of VETH interfaces to bridge between > >> your host and virtual host. > >> > > > > What I was fundamentally trying to achieve was to avoid using any more > > than one physical interface on the box (excepting a separate > > management interface) to do this testing. While I happened to have > > another unused interface I could bridge this virtual host onto, in some > > cases you might not. Conceptually when using them, it is very easy to > > think of the macvlan interfaces as nothing very different to having > > multiple physical interfaces sitting on the same LAN segment. In my > > scenario, bridging only one of them for this specific case of a > > virtual guest host seemed like quite a logical thing to do. > > > > Would veth interfaces facilitate the sharing of a single physical > > interface between bridged and non-bridged processes on the host? > > A Veth pair is like two ports linked back to each other..what is tx'd on one > is rx'd on the other. > > You could probably add eth0, veth1a, veth2a to a bridge, > then add macvlans on veth1b and have your virtual guest > talk to veth2b. > > I do similar things with my redirdev devices, which are almost identical > to veths, so I think it will work. > Why bother, a macvlan is just a special case of a bridge, so why not just bridge everything?