[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51409F24.3070305@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:45:40 -0400
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC: "Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" <sysoleg@...dex.ru>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] Allow bridge to function in non-promisc
mode
On 03/13/2013 11:39 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:12:29 -0400
> Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/13/2013 02:22 AM, "Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 13.03.2013, 05:45, "Vlad Yasevich" <vyasevic@...hat.com>:
>>>
>>>> The series adds an ability for the bridge to function in non-promiscuous mode.
>>>
>>> What is the practical applications for such setup? In other words,
>>> in which cases I would want to put bridge into non-promiscuous
>>> mode and specify some uplink ports?
>>>
>>
>> On of the applications would be when bridge is an edge device servicing
>> a VM deployment. Each of the VMs knows the mac address that the guest
>> has and may program that mac onto the uplinks.
>
> Why wouldn't that environment just use macvlan?
> Is it because changing libvirt is harder than changing the kernel?
>
No, because macvlan has a drawback that it doesn't easily let guests
talk to the host. Bridge is still most commonly used for just that reason.
-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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists