netdev - Re: bridge: HSR support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4EA5738B.8080008@enea.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:17:47 +0200
From:	Arvid Brodin <arvid.brodin@...a.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: bridge: HSR support

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:25:08 +0200
> Arvid Brodin <arvid.brodin@...a.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to add support for HSR ("High-availability Seamless Redundancy",
>> IEC-62439-3) to the bridge code. With HSR, all connected units have two network
>> ports and are connected in a ring. All new Ethernet packets are sent on both
>> ports (or passed through if the current unit is not the originating unit). The
>> same packet is never passed twice. Non-HSR units are not allowed in the ring.
>>
>> This gives instant, reconfiguration-free failover.
>>
>> I'd like your input on how to design the user interface. To me it seems natural
>> to use bridge-utils, which of course today supports STP.
>>
>> One solution is to simply add an "hsr" command:
>>
>> # brctl hsr <bridge> on|off
>>
>> But HSR is mutually exclusive to other modes, and I think that STP and standard
>> bridge mode are mutually exclusive, too? Perhaps it would be better (more user-
>> friendly) to 
>>
>> # brctl type <bridge> standard|stp|hsr
>>
>> ?
>>
>> 'brctl stp <bridge> on|off' would have to be kept for compatibility, but could
>> be a simple wrapper for 'brctl type <bridge> stp|standard'
>>
>> What do you think about this?
>>
> 
> Why is it a bridge thing and not a standalone or bonding (or the new team
> device feature? Wouldn't users want to use it without all the stuff
> related to bridging. The fact that it doesn't work with STP is a big
> red flag that it doesn't belong in the bridge.

Ok, having read up some more on this it looks like STP is a standardised part of
bridging, so I guess you're right. 


I need to do two things:

1) Bind two network interfaces into one (say, eth0 & eth1 => hsr0). Frames sent on
   hsr0 should get an HSR tag (including the correct EtherType) and go out on both
   eth0 and eth1.

2) Ingress frames on eth0 & eth1, with EtherType 0x88fb, should be captured and 
   handled specially (either received on hsr0 or forwarded to the other bound 
   physical interface).

Any ideas on the best way to implement this -- what's the nicest place to "hook
into" for this?


-- 
Arvid Brodin
Enea Services Stockholm AB
--
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