From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jasper Spaans Subject: Re: bridging + load balancing bonding Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:51:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20091023095137.GA22424@spaans.fox.local> References: <20091022122339.GA20148@spaans.fox.local> <4AE07D3C.3040702@gmail.com> <20091023083851.GA18457@spaans.fox.local> <4AE16F83.7080400@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from ns2.fox-it.com ([82.94.91.210]:29299 "EHLO mail2.fox-it.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751431AbZJWJvi (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:51:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AE16F83.7080400@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:55:31AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Dont you think special attention is needed for multicast/broadcast trafic > (they should be sent to both IDS) ? Not really -- AFAIK we're currently not using the information encapsulated in broadcast traffic to judge the unicast packets. Besides, we're aggregating the results from the IDSes, so it shouldn't matter on which node a packet is processed. But if the need arises, this could be added quite easily to the code. Jasper -- Fox-IT Experts in IT Security! T: +31 (0) 15 284 79 99 KvK Haaglanden 27301624