[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121219101006.7086faef@pixies.home.jungo.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:10:06 +0200
From: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com, davem@...emloft.net,
or.gerlitz@...il.com, jhs@...atatu.com, mst@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 00/12] Add basic VLAN support to bridges
Thanks Vlad,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:00:51 -0500 Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:
> A single vlan may also be designated as untagged. Any untagged traffic
> recieved by the port will be assigned to this vlan.
Why the "untagged vlan" is per-bridge global?
Usually, 802.1q switches define the PVID (port's VID) which controls
the value of VID, in case ingress frame is either untagged or
priority-tagged (per port configuration).
This gives greater flexibility.
> Any traffic exiting
> the port with a VID matching the untagged vlan will exit untagged (the
> bridge will strip the vlan header). This is similar to "Native Vlan" support
> available in most switches.
802.1q switches usually allow conifguring per-vlan, per-port
tagged/untagged egress policy: each vid has its port membership map and
an accompanying port egress-policy map.
This gives great flexibility defining all sorts of configurations.
Personally, I'd prefer a fully flexible vlan bridge allowing all sorts
of configurations (as available in 802.1q switches).
What's the reason limiting such configurations?
Regards,
Shmulik
--
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