From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: RFC: bridge get fdb by bridge device Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:02:51 -0500 Message-ID: <52FBC55B.9040505@redhat.com> References: <52F21F72.2090405@mojatatu.com> <52F29747.7040008@redhat.com> <52F3CF76.9090404@mojatatu.com> <52F3E357.4040006@redhat.com> <52F79990.3000400@mojatatu.com> <52F8FEF1.60407@redhat.com> <52FA58E9.906@mojatatu.com> <52FA6A24.3030402@redhat.com> <52FA84FA.2030608@mojatatu.com> <52FA8F8B.3080500@redhat.com> <52FA9167.2040305@mojatatu.com> Reply-To: vyasevic@redhat.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Scott Feldman , John Fastabend To: Jamal Hadi Salim , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47980 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752706AbaBLTC7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:02:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <52FA9167.2040305@mojatatu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/11/2014 04:08 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On 02/11/14 16:00, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> On 02/11/2014 03:15 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > >> >> Because it just a multi-function nic that isn't tagged with any >> kine of bridge flag. As John said, this might be useful, but not >> done yet. >> > > Ok, fair enough. Someone should send a patch - John perhaps. > >> >> Not directly. However, if you put a layered software device in between >> (vlan, bond, macvlan), then you can add that device to another bridge. >> In fact, people do that to get GVRP working with VMs. >> > > Do you recall the reasoning behind it? Before my time. It's there since before 2.6.12 :) -vlad > > >>> It certainly has some equivalent semantics (looks at dst MAC then >>> picks the port). Possible to add Vlans as well? >> >> I suppose. You can do things like: >> # ip link add link eth0 dev vlan100 protocol 8021Q id 100 >> # ip link add link vlan0 dev mac100 type macvlan >> >> Now, you have a macvlan (mac100) that will only receive vlan100 traffic. >> Expressing this in terms of fdb would be a bit difficult since each >> interface is separate and eth0 doesn't really know about the stack. >> It would require quite a lot of code. >> > > nice. > >>> Why dont we tag such a thing as a bridge then? >>> >> >> Because they are not always a bridge. It could be just a nic capable of >> mac filtering. >> > > I think in one of the modes it is merely a filter. > But you turn on this other feature it is a bridge. > >> >> Didn't realize it has different connotation for vxlan. The you probably >> don't want to include and support in the bridge fdb show command. > > Thats what i thought you said earlier ;-> > > cheers, > jamal