Re: [Bonding-devel] bonding inside a bridge does not work when using arp monitoring

Re: [Bonding-devel] bonding inside a bridge does not work when using arp monitoring

[Nicolas de Pesloüan]

Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a écrit :
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> Thank you for answering my question.
> Actually this is what I want to achieve:
>
> eth0----+               +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machines
>            |             |
>            +----bond0----+----br0---(LAN)
>            |             |
> eth1----+               +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machines

Hi Leonardo,

I'm not sure recent kernels allow for a given interface to be a port for a bridge and the base 
interface for vlan interfaces at the same time. This might be particularly true for 2.6.38 or 
2.6.38+, because of the new rx_handler usage.

cc: netdev and Jiri Pirko, for advices. For the history of the thread, see:

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1300914794.32252.68.camel%40bordalnx&
forum_name=bonding-devel

> br0 -->  br0 in my understanding is an untagged vlan therefore it
> provides access to my LAN. So i am able to access that server from my
> internal network.
> br0-100 and br0-200 ->  Vlans over a bridged interface will allow me to
> have many virtual machines in the same vlan on each bridged interface.
>
> I am misunderstanding concepts, maybe?
> If you need to do further tests I have a test environment ready for use.
>
> Leonardo

Re: [Bonding-devel] bonding inside a bridge does not work when using arp monitoring

[Jiri Pirko]

Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:20:22PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com wrote:
>Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a écrit :
>>Hi Nicolas,
>>
>>Thank you for answering my question.
>>Actually this is what I want to achieve:
>>
>>eth0----+               +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machines
>>           |             |
>>           +----bond0----+----br0---(LAN)
>>           |             |
>>eth1----+               +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machines
>
>Hi Leonardo,
>
>I'm not sure recent kernels allow for a given interface to be a port
>for a bridge and the base interface for vlan interfaces at the same
>time. This might be particularly true for 2.6.38 or 2.6.38+, because
>of the new rx_handler usage.

This topology is not legit and should/will be prohibited.

Only consider that you have + br0.100 device on top of br0. Where should
the packet go?

I suggest to consider topology change.

>
>cc: netdev and Jiri Pirko, for advices. For the history of the thread, see:
>
>http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1300914794.32252.68.camel%40bordalnx&
>forum_name=bonding-devel
>
>>br0 -->  br0 in my understanding is an untagged vlan therefore it
>>provides access to my LAN. So i am able to access that server from my
>>internal network.
>>br0-100 and br0-200 ->  Vlans over a bridged interface will allow me to
>>have many virtual machines in the same vlan on each bridged interface.
>>
>>I am misunderstanding concepts, maybe?
>>If you need to do further tests I have a test environment ready for use.
>>
>>Leonardo

Re: [Bonding-devel] bonding inside a bridge does not work when using arp monitoring

[Michał Mirosław]

2011/3/26 Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com>:
> Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:20:22PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com wrote:
>>Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a écrit :
>>>Thank you for answering my question.
>>>Actually this is what I want to achieve:
>>>
>>>eth0----+               +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machines
>>>           |             |
>>>           +----bond0----+----br0---(LAN)
>>>           |             |
>>>eth1----+               +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machines
>>
>>Hi Leonardo,
>>
>>I'm not sure recent kernels allow for a given interface to be a port
>>for a bridge and the base interface for vlan interfaces at the same
>>time. This might be particularly true for 2.6.38 or 2.6.38+, because
>>of the new rx_handler usage.
>
> This topology is not legit and should/will be prohibited.
>
> Only consider that you have + br0.100 device on top of br0. Where should
> the packet go?
>
> I suggest to consider topology change.

It should be possible to have bridge for untagged (or 802.1p only)
packets independent of 802.1q tagged packets. I wonder if tag 0
devices should be expanded to have a flag that will enable handling
untagged packets by it.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław

Re: [Bonding-devel] bonding inside a bridge does not work when using arp monitoring

[Nicolas de Pesloüan]

Le 26/03/2011 16:42, Michał Mirosław a écrit :
> 2011/3/26 Jiri Pirko<jpirko@redhat.com>:
>> Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:20:22PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a écrit :
>>>> Thank you for answering my question.
>>>> Actually this is what I want to achieve:
>>>>
>>>> eth0----+               +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machines
>>>>            |             |
>>>>            +----bond0----+----br0---(LAN)
>>>>            |             |
>>>> eth1----+               +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machines
>>>
>>> Hi Leonardo,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure recent kernels allow for a given interface to be a port
>>> for a bridge and the base interface for vlan interfaces at the same
>>> time. This might be particularly true for 2.6.38 or 2.6.38+, because
>>> of the new rx_handler usage.
>>
>> This topology is not legit and should/will be prohibited.
>>
>> Only consider that you have + br0.100 device on top of br0. Where should
>> the packet go?
>>
>> I suggest to consider topology change.
>
> It should be possible to have bridge for untagged (or 802.1p only)
> packets independent of 802.1q tagged packets. I wonder if tag 0
> devices should be expanded to have a flag that will enable handling
> untagged packets by it.

Isn't the BROUTING chain of the broute table of ebtables designed exactly for that?

I think DROPing in this chain should allow delivery to VLAN:

In br_input.c :

                 rhook = rcu_dereference(br_should_route_hook);
                 if (rhook) {
                         if ((*rhook)(skb)) {
                                 *pskb = skb;
                                 return RX_HANDLER_PASS;
                         }

RX_HANDLER_PASS causes the skb to be normally delivered in __netif_receive_skb.

Leonardo, would you please try to DROP vlan tagged packets in the BROUTING chain of the broute table 
of ebtables?

	Nicolas.