[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:17:17 +0100
From: Michal Soltys <soltys@....info>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Leonardo Uzcudun <uzcudunl@...oo.it>,
yao zhao <yao.development@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VLAN 1 - Native
On 02.02.2012 10:12, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le jeudi 02 février 2012 à 09:09 +0000, Leonardo Uzcudun a écrit :
>> Hello Michal:
>>
>> It is working on kernel 3.0.0-15 Ubuntu. I've just to modify the
>> ebtables command as:
>> ebtables -t broute -A BROUTING -i eth0 -p 802_1Q --vlan-id 101 -j DROP
>> (protocol is a must when you use --vlan-id)
>>
>>
>> I'll test it on kernel 2.6.32-5 Debian
>>
>>
>> Just last question,in the case i should implement this kind of
>> configuration in a kernel 2.6.31, should i backport/patch anything? is
>> it a bad idea (running it on 2.6.31)?
>
> This is going to be tough.
>
Btw, this (ebtables broute drop) method has been mentioned in bridge-nf
faq for ages (through most/all 2.6 kernels at least) - and for the very
purpose of directing tagged/not tagged traffic to proper bridge
interfaces. Shouldn't 2.6.31 be pretty safe in that regard ?
Or did you mean backporting/patching part ?
> The point of Jesse Gross (and others) work was exactly to permit better
> vlan/bridge integration/stacking.
>
Just to be sure - are those patches in any way changing / deprecating /
conflicting with ebtables approach ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists