[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <556E2EC2.3020104@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:31:30 -0700
From: nolan <nolan@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
CC: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Jerome Oufella <jerome.oufella@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel@...oirfairelinux.com, Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add support for VTU ops
On 06/02/2015 12:44 AM, Scott Feldman wrote:
> That brings up an interesting point about having multiple bridges with
> the same vlan configured. I struggled with that problem with rocker
> also and I don't have an answer other than "don't do that". Or,
> better put, if you have multiple bridge on the same vlan, just use one
> bridge for that vlan. Otherwise, I don't know how at the device level
> to partition the vlan between the bridges. Maybe that's what Vivien
> is facing also? I can see how this works for software-only bridges,
> because they should be isolated from each other and independent. But
> when offloading to a device which sees VLAN XXX global across the
> entire switch, I don't see how we can preserve the bridge boundaries.
Scott,
I'm confused by this. I think you're saying this config is problematic:
br0: eth0.100, eth1.100
br1: eth2.100, eth3.100
But this works fine today.
Could you clarify the issue you're referring to?
Thanks,
- nolan
--
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