From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] Allow bridge to function in non-promisc mode Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:39:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20130313083932.6483876f@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <1363139126-13396-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <473541363155743@web2d.yandex.ru> <51406D2D.30703@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" To: vyasevic@redhat.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <51406D2D.30703@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:12:29 -0400 Vlad Yasevich wrote: > On 03/13/2013 02:22 AM, "Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" wrote: > > > > > > 13.03.2013, 05:45, "Vlad Yasevich" : > > > >> The series adds an ability for the bridge to function in non-promiscuous mode. > > > > What is the practical applications for such setup? In other words, > > in which cases I would want to put bridge into non-promiscuous > > mode and specify some uplink ports? > > > > On of the applications would be when bridge is an edge device servicing > a VM deployment. Each of the VMs knows the mac address that the guest > has and may program that mac onto the uplinks. Why wouldn't that environment just use macvlan? Is it because changing libvirt is harder than changing the kernel?