From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: Bridges Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:52:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4C6CAA60.60808@riverviewtech.net> References: <4C6B10CA.4090604@abpni.co.uk> <4C6C55C8.5000905@riverviewtech.net> <4C6C65CD.6090707@plouf.fr.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C6C65CD.6090707@plouf.fr.eu.org> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Mail List - Netfilter Pascal Hambourg wrote: > It depends what "traffic" means. Ethernet frames, no. IP packets, yes > if the box also acts as an IP router between the bridges. I took Jonathan's comment to be referring to ethernet frames. Even if the box is acting as an IP router between the bridges, I view that as an operation that is happening out side of the bridge(s). Thus there is an external process that is taking IP packets and passing them between the bridges. As such, the ""traffic is still not ""leaking / ""flooding between the bridges as a failure or shortcoming of the bridge, but rather an external influence. The same thing can be said about two switches that have a router between them. When the ""traffic goes between the switches it is not because of something the switches did, rather the external router's doing. ;-) Grant. . . .