From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bridge: Consider the Nearest
 Customer Bridge group addresses
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:21:27 -0700
Message-ID: <20140610092127.5b4f528f@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
References: <1402313687-28067-1-git-send-email-makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<1402313687-28067-4-git-send-email-makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<20140609085243.32f88582@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
	<1402332351.1742.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<5396363E.2020501@redhat.com> <5396AE23.80808@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: vyasevic@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S .
	Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Return-path: <bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <5396AE23.80808@lab.ntt.co.jp>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bridge>,
	<mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bridge/>
List-Post: <mailto:bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge>,
	<mailto:bridge-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: bridge-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:05:07 +0900
Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:

> (2014/06/10 7:33), Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> ...
> >>> Rather than special casing this around vlan filtering, I would prefer
> >>> the code always forward these packets, or manipulate group_fwd_mask
> >>> to allow it that way.
> >>
> >> These addresses must be forwarded only if the bridge is an S-VLAN
> >> bridge. When it is a C-VLAN bridge or a .1D bridge, they may not be
> >> forwarded. So, I don't think we can forward them always.
> >>
> >> Using group_fwd_mask is a bit complicated. If we use it to forward them,
> >> user can optionally turn off forwarding ability of those addresses...
> >> but we maybe need another information (named like group_fwd_mask_set)
> >> that indicates which bit is set by user. (We have to set group_fwd_mask
> >> automatically when we set vlan_proto to 88a8.)
> >> Is this way acceptable?
> > 
> > May be separate it into required mask and user mask.  Set required
> > mask when this is an S-VLAN bridge.
> 
> Sounds like a good idea.
> I'll give it a try, thank you for your suggestion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Toshiaki Makita
> 

Looking again at the code.

1. If doing vlan then it should forward frames as defined in standard
   by default.

2. For compatiability, and for those users doing bump-on-wire, allow
   forwarding via group mask.