From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shmulik Ladkani Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 00/12] Add basic VLAN support to bridges Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:00:40 +0200 Message-ID: <20121220090040.6d29d25f@pixies.home.jungo.com> References: <1355857263-31197-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <20121219101006.7086faef@pixies.home.jungo.com> <50D1CB76.50202@redhat.com> <20121219213716.778d6449.shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com> <50D21D98.7020907@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, shemminger@vyatta.com, davem@davemloft.net, or.gerlitz@gmail.com, jhs@mojatatu.com, mst@redhat.com To: vyasevic@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:48398 "EHLO mail-wg0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750934Ab2LTHIh (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:08:37 -0500 Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id dr13so1317923wgb.25 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2012 23:08:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50D21D98.7020907@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Vlad, On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:03:36 -0500 Vlad Yasevich wrote: > > The port's PVID uniquely determines VID to associate with the frame > > during _ingress_ on that port - in the case frame arrived untagged. > > > > This is unrelated to whether a frame having a specific VID would _egress_ > > tagged or untagged on that port. > > Ahh... I see what you mean. You would like to separate > ingress policy and egress policy with regard to how tags are applied... Exactly. Those are two different things; sometimes their configuration collide, sometimes not. > > The bridge constructs needed for supporting such setups are: > > - per port: PVID > > - per VLAN: port membership map > > - per VLAN: port egress policy map > > Ok, so from above, membership map is the exiting port_bitmap. Ok. > Egress policy map could be new untagged_bitmap. We wouldn't need a tagged > policy map since a port can't be "in egress policy, but not in > membership map". Yes, that is correct. However I wouldn't call it "untagged_bitmap". The name might suggest that "egress untagged" is an anomaly, where "normal" behavior is egress tagged. But as said, both are valid, its just a matter of configuration. You basically need one more bit for each member port, stating egress tagged/untagged. > Sounds about right? If so, I could probably work something up. Yes, looking forward to review the code. P.S. Sorry for late spotting this; I don't follow net-dev regularly. I hope to take a look at the code soon, see if I have any meaningful comments. Regards, Shmulik