[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140226173235.GA16484@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:32:35 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
jhs@...atatu.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] bridge: Automatically manage port promiscuous mode.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 08:58:26AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:18:22 -0500
> Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > When there is only 1 flooding port, this port is programmed
> > with all the address the bridge accumulated. This allows
> > us to place this port into non-promiscuous mode.
> > At other times, all ports are set as promiscuous. To help
> > track whether the bridge set the mode or not, a new
> > flag is introduced.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
>
> This mixes the definition of outbound (flooding) and inbound (promiscuous).
> Not sure if this is safe in all cases.
Logically: inbound on port A == outbound on all ports except A
So promisc on A == OR of flood on all ports except A
This rule should just be applied to all ports.
Makes sense, right?
I think this is what this tries to implement, even if the
optimization attempt masks the logic somewhat.
--
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