From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] bridge: Fix problems around the PVID Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:49:26 -0400 Message-ID: <523744A6.5090001@redhat.com> References: <1378808874.3988.2.camel@ubuntu-vm-makita> <20130912.160033.779509034953932316.davem@davemloft.net> <1379074013.1678.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: vyasevic@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao , Patrick McHardy To: Toshiaki Makita Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48557 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751148Ab3IPRtv (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:49:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1379074013.1678.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/13/2013 08:06 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:00 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Toshiaki Makita >> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:27:54 +0900 >> >>> There seem to be some undesirable behaviors related with PVID. >>> 1. It has no effect assigning PVID to a port. PVID cannot be applied >>> to any frame regardless of whether we set it or not. >>> 2. FDB entries learned via frames applied PVID are registered with >>> VID 0 rather than VID value of PVID. >>> 3. We can set 0 or 4095 as a PVID that are not allowed in IEEE 802.1Q. >>> This leads interoperational problems such as sending frames with VID >>> 4095, which is not allowed in IEEE 802.1Q, and treating frames with VID >>> 0 as they belong to VLAN 0, which is expected to be handled as they have >>> no VID according to IEEE 802.1Q. >>> >>> Note: 2nd and 3rd problems are potential and not exposed unless 1st problem >>> is fixed, because we cannot activate PVID due to it. >> >> Please work out the issues in patch #2 with Vlad and resubmit this >> series. >> >> Thank you. > > I'm hovering between whether we should fix the issue by changing vlan 0 > interface behavior in 8021q module or enabling a bridge port to sending > priority-tagged frames, or another better way. > > If you could comment it, I'd appreciate it :) > > > BTW, I think what is discussed in patch #2 is another problem about > handling priority-tags, and it exists without this patch set applied. > It looks like that we should prepare another patch set than this to fix > that problem. > > Should I include patches that fix the priority-tags problem in this > patch set and resubmit them all together? > I am thinking that we might need to do it in bridge and it looks like the simplest way to do it is to have default priority regeneration table (table 6-5 from 802.1Q doc). That way I think we would conform to the spec. -vlad > > Thanks, > > Toshiaki Makita > >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > >