From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Bridge: request for the via_phys_dev feature discussion Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:21:12 +0300 Message-ID: <4B7D30B8.2050400@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Stephen Hemminger , Linux Netdev List Return-path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:4942 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758044Ab0BRMVY (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:21:24 -0500 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, Stephen. Some time ago Cyrill Corcunov sent a patches, that added to bridges the ability to send/receive packets via ethernet device in it rather than via the bridge device itself. Here's the link on the thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org/msg01108.html That time you told, that the problem we were trying to solve with the patches could be solved by other means. If you don't mind can we discus this in more details? In simple situation containers users want to bridge their containers through veth device with the host eth0 adapter. But after one add his eth0 to bridge he need to a) reconfigure everything including IP addresses, routing tables and netfilter rules b) recreate connections that were bound to eth0 That's OK if one setup the box from the scratch and adds eth0 to bridge from the very beginning, but for those who start using containers on pre-configured boxes or for those, who decided to switch to bridge+veth from some other virtual device (e.g. macvlan or venet device in OpenVZ) this becomes real pain. I don't insist you accept the patches Cyrill proposed, I don't even insist we rework them keeping the idea intact. I just want to know your opinion about how to solve the above problem better. Thanks, Pavel