From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: Is it valid to add a macvlan virtual interface to a bridge? If so, there seems to be a bug with it. Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:08:09 -0800 Message-ID: <4939C269.4010609@candelatech.com> References: <20081204203352.9740c60e.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <4937D494.8080202@trash.net> <4939683D.40406@candelatech.com> <20081206092448.0c83d606.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Patrick McHardy , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Smith Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:53524 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753457AbYLFAIQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:08:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081206092448.0c83d606.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mark Smith wrote: > Hi, > Would handling of frames for promiscuous macvlan interfaces be quite > similar to handling of incoming broadcast and multicast frames e.g. > for an incoming frame, walk through the list of macvlan interfaces (or > a separate list of promiscuous macvlan interfaces) that are currently in > promiscuous mode, and hand them a copy of the incoming frame? That could probably work. >> You might try using a pair of VETH interfaces to bridge between >> your host and virtual host. >> > > What I was fundamentally trying to achieve was to avoid using any more > than one physical interface on the box (excepting a separate > management interface) to do this testing. While I happened to have > another unused interface I could bridge this virtual host onto, in some > cases you might not. Conceptually when using them, it is very easy to > think of the macvlan interfaces as nothing very different to having > multiple physical interfaces sitting on the same LAN segment. In my > scenario, bridging only one of them for this specific case of a > virtual guest host seemed like quite a logical thing to do. > > Would veth interfaces facilitate the sharing of a single physical > interface between bridged and non-bridged processes on the host? A Veth pair is like two ports linked back to each other..what is tx'd on one is rx'd on the other. You could probably add eth0, veth1a, veth2a to a bridge, then add macvlans on veth1b and have your virtual guest talk to veth2b. I do similar things with my redirdev devices, which are almost identical to veths, so I think it will work. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com