netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V4 00/13] Add basic VLAN support to bridges

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: <50D24679.8050507@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:58:01 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Collins <bsderandrew@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	or.gerlitz@...il.com, jhs@...atatu.com, mst@...hat.com,
	erdnetdev@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V4 00/13] Add basic VLAN support to bridges

On 12/19/2012 05:54 PM, Andrew Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:
>> This series of patches provides an ability to add VLANs to the bridge
>> ports.  This is similar to what can be found in most switches.  The bridge
>> port may have any number of VLANs added to it including vlan 0 priority tagged
>> traffic.  When vlans are added to the port, only traffic tagged with particular
>> vlan will forwarded over this port.  Additionally, vlan ids are added to FDB
>> entries and become part of the lookup.  This way we correctly identify the FDB
>> entry.
>
> This is likely well beyond the scope of this change, but I figured I'd
> throw out the question anyway.  This changeset looks to bring the
> Linux bridging code closer to the 802.1Q-2005 definition of a bridge,
> which is nice to see, I'm curious if this changeset also opens up the
> possibility of supporting MSTP in the future?  The big thing I see
> missing is per-VLAN port state, although I'm not very familiar with
> the current STP/bridge interactions.  Has anyone put any thought into
> what other necessary bridge pieces might be missing for MSTP support?
> (specifically regarding bridge/vlan interaction, obviously something
> to handle the MSTP protocol itself would need to exist as well)
>

heh..  opening up all sorts of cans of worms today... :)

Have only given it some very passing thoughts.  Absolutely nothing 
concrete here.  Maybe someone else has.

-vlad
--
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