[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <530E7FE1.5060705@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:59:29 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC: bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
mst@...hat.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] Non-promisc bidge ports support
On 02/26/14 10:18, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> This patch series is a complete re-design and re-implementation of
> prior attempts to support non-promiscuous bridge ports.
>
> The basic design is as follows. The bridge keeps track of
> all the ports that flood packets to unknown destinations. If
> the flooding is disabled on the port, to get traffic to flow
> through, user/management would need to add an fdb describing
> such traffic. When such fdb is added, we save the address
> to bridge private hardware address list.
Entering the addresses in the uc list on other bridgeports seems
reasonable for the scenario described.
But would it _also_ need to be added to the fdb of the bridge?
i.e how does the bridge (if the packet was to be handed to it)
know where to forward?
BTW: on the comment that flooding off implies learning off: I would like
to be able to turn off flooding on a specific bridge port but
still want to learn from it. I dont think those two are mutually
exclusive.
cheers,
jamal
--
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