From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Add basic VLAN support to bridges Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:00:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20121213.140023.2131448980265576282.davem@davemloft.net> References: <50C91506.70903@redhat.com> <20121213094719.3a7a9408@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: vyasevic@redhat.com, or.gerlitz@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com, john.r.fastabend@intel.com To: shemminger@vyatta.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:40304 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932089Ab2LMTA1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:00:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121213094719.3a7a9408@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:47:19 -0800 > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:36:38 -0500 > Vlad Yasevich wrote: > >> On 12/12/2012 05:54 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> >> This series of patches provides an ability to add VLANs to the bridge >> >> > > The bigger question is why is this impossible or too awkward with existing > netfilter (ebtables) functionality? As a practical matter, I like to keep > the bridging code as simple as possible and move the complexity away from > the core. > > Also, if the functionality lived in netfilter rules, the developer and user > would have a more freedom to implement complex rulesets. I do not consider it wise to create more, rather then fewer, users of ebtables. It is one of the most poorly constructed subsystems in the entire networking. Just my $0.02