From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Toshiaki Makita Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] bridge: Consider the Nearest Customer Bridge group addresses Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:05:07 +0900 Message-ID: <5396AE23.80808@lab.ntt.co.jp> References: <1402313687-28067-1-git-send-email-makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp> <1402313687-28067-4-git-send-email-makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20140609085243.32f88582@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> <1402332351.1742.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <5396363E.2020501@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, "David S . Miller" To: vyasevic@redhat.com, Toshiaki Makita , Stephen Hemminger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5396363E.2020501@redhat.com> 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 (2014/06/10 7:33), Vlad Yasevich wrote: ... >>> Rather than special casing this around vlan filtering, I would prefer >>> the code always forward these packets, or manipulate group_fwd_mask >>> to allow it that way. >> >> These addresses must be forwarded only if the bridge is an S-VLAN >> bridge. When it is a C-VLAN bridge or a .1D bridge, they may not be >> forwarded. So, I don't think we can forward them always. >> >> Using group_fwd_mask is a bit complicated. If we use it to forward them, >> user can optionally turn off forwarding ability of those addresses... >> but we maybe need another information (named like group_fwd_mask_set) >> that indicates which bit is set by user. (We have to set group_fwd_mask >> automatically when we set vlan_proto to 88a8.) >> Is this way acceptable? > > May be separate it into required mask and user mask. Set required > mask when this is an S-VLAN bridge. Sounds like a good idea. I'll give it a try, thank you for your suggestion. Thanks, Toshiaki Makita