From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bridge 0/5] Add basic VLAN support to bridges Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:41:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20120823124141.402b7b34@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <1345750195-31598-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Vlad Yasevich Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:41074 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759159Ab2HWTl7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:41:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1345750195-31598-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:29:50 -0400 Vlad Yasevich wrote: > This series of patches provides an ability to add VLAN IDs to the bridge > ports. This is similar to what can be found in most switches. The bridge > port may have any number of VLANs added to it including vlan 0 for untagged > traffic. When vlans are added to the port, only traffic tagged with particular > vlan will forwarded over this port. Additionally, vlan ids are added to FDB > entries and become part of the lookup. This way we correctly identify the FDB > entry. > > There are still pieces missing. I don't yet support adding a static fdb entry > with a particular vlan. There is no netlink support for carrying a vlan id. > > I'd like to hear thoughts of whether this is usufull and something we should > persue. > > The default behavior ofthe bridge is unchanged if no vlans have been > configured. Initial reaction is that this is a useful. You can already do the same thing with ebtables, and ebtables allows more flexibility. But ebtables does slow things down, and is harder to configure.