From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Taylor Subject: Re: Bridges Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:51:15 -0500 Message-ID: <4C6D44E3.7050608@riverviewtech.net> References: <4C6B10CA.4090604@abpni.co.uk> <4C6C55C8.5000905@riverviewtech.net> <4C6C65CD.6090707@plouf.fr.eu.org> <4C6CAA60.60808@riverviewtech.net> <4C6CDE4E.7000609@plouf.fr.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C6CDE4E.7000609@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 On 08/19/10 02:33, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Me too, but I wanted to be more general. Fair enough. ;-) > Or one L3 switch with two port-based VLANs. Packets should not leak > between VLANs unless they're routed. Heh. I'll argue that even if the device that ""leaks the packet from one interface to another is called a switch, that it is still doing a layer 3 function, namely routing. Layer 3 switches are just really efficient routers when it comes to routing from one vlan to another. (That or I vastly mis-understand how layer 3 switching is different from routing. At least when it comes to what is done with the IP packet, regardless of how it's technically done. If I am mistaken I'd love to have someone correct me.) Grant. . . .