[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49CC85E9.7070903@trash.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:53:13 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: jpirko@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com,
shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
fubar@...ibm.com, bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
mschmidt@...hat.com, dada1@...mosbay.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: allow bond in mode balance-alb to work properly
in bridge -try4
David Miller wrote:
> From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:52:06 +0100
>
>> (resend, updated changelog, hook moved into skb_bond_should_drop,
>> skb_bond_should_drop ifdefed)
>>
>> Hi all.
>>
>> The problem is described in following bugzilla:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487763
> ...
>> This patch solves the situation in the bonding without touching bridge code,
>> as Patrick suggested. For every incoming frame to bonding it searches the
>> destination address in slaves list and if any of slave addresses matches, it
>> rewrites the address in frame by the adress of bonding master. This ensures that
>> all frames comming thru the bonding in alb mode have the same address.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
>
>
> I don't like the hook, but if that's how it's best done....
>
> Patrick, please review this.
Me neither, but I don't think this approach can be done without the
hook. While I still find it questionable whether this mode really
needs to be supported for a bridge at all, an alternative approach
would be to have bonding add FDB entries for all secondary MACs to
make bridging treat them as local.
--
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