From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Bonding-devel] bonding inside a bridge does not work when using
 arp monitoring
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:01:16 +0100
Message-ID: <20110326140115.GA2882@psychotron.redhat.com>
References: <1300302933.1462.5.camel@bordalnx>
 <4D8121EF.3030200@free.fr>
 <1300914794.32252.68.camel@bordalnx>
 <4D8DDA06.4040704@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: Leonardo Borda <leonardo.borda@canonical.com>,
	Nicolas de =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peslo=FCan?=
	<nicolas.2p.debian@free.fr>,
	Bridge <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Nicolas de =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peslo=FCan?=
	<nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45589 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751511Ab1CZOBc (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:01:32 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D8DDA06.4040704@gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:20:22PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com wrote:
>Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a =E9crit :
>>Hi Nicolas,
>>
>>Thank you for answering my question.
>>Actually this is what I want to achieve:
>>
>>eth0----+               +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machine=
s
>>           |             |
>>           +----bond0----+----br0---(LAN)
>>           |             |
>>eth1----+               +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machine=
s
>
>Hi Leonardo,
>
>I'm not sure recent kernels allow for a given interface to be a port
>for a bridge and the base interface for vlan interfaces at the same
>time. This might be particularly true for 2.6.38 or 2.6.38+, because
>of the new rx_handler usage.

This topology is not legit and should/will be prohibited.

Only consider that you have + br0.100 device on top of br0. Where shoul=
d
the packet go?

I suggest to consider topology change.

>
>cc: netdev and Jiri Pirko, for advices. For the history of the thread,=
 see:
>
>http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=3D1300914794.=
32252.68.camel%40bordalnx&
>forum_name=3Dbonding-devel
>
>>br0 -->  br0 in my understanding is an untagged vlan therefore it
>>provides access to my LAN. So i am able to access that server from my
>>internal network.
>>br0-100 and br0-200 ->  Vlans over a bridged interface will allow me =
to
>>have many virtual machines in the same vlan on each bridged interface=
=2E
>>
>>I am misunderstanding concepts, maybe?
>>If you need to do further tests I have a test environment ready for u=
se.
>>
>>Leonardo