From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adayadil Thomas Subject: Re: Connection tracking and vlan Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:40:21 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20091030152054.GA7936@gondor.apana.org.au> <4AEB06E6.6020206@gmail.com> <469958e00910301251he051d69p178ce53e84130765@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Eric Dumazet , Herbert Xu , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Patrick McHardy To: Caitlin Bestler Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f192.google.com ([209.85.212.192]:40566 "EHLO mail-vw0-f192.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754178AbZJ3UkR (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:40:17 -0400 Received: by vws30 with SMTP id 30so740505vws.33 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:40:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <469958e00910301251he051d69p178ce53e84130765@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > Yes, it is legitimate for a Bridge to see two different 10.*.*.* > networks on different VLANs. > A Bridge can even see that same MAC address being used by two > different end stations > on different VLANs (especially if the global bit is not set). > > What is not legitimate is presenting both of those 10.*.*.* networks > for local delivery. > I did not mean this case. > If you are only bridging the frames then there are no connections to > track, only frames. > This is more like what I was trying to do with the device, but with stateful firewall functionality for which I was using iptables/netfilter. Thanks