From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] Allow bridge to function in non-promisc mode Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:45:40 -0400 Message-ID: <51409F24.3070305@redhat.com> References: <1363139126-13396-1-git-send-email-vyasevic@redhat.com> <473541363155743@web2d.yandex.ru> <51406D2D.30703@redhat.com> <20130313083932.6483876f@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Reply-To: vyasevic@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" To: Stephen Hemminger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130313083932.6483876f@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> 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 03/13/2013 11:39 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > 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? > No, because macvlan has a drawback that it doesn't easily let guests talk to the host. Bridge is still most commonly used for just that reason. -vlad