Re: RFC: Simple Private VLAN impl.

[Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 12/06/2009 11:17:45:
>
> Daniel Robbins <drobbins@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > In particular, I think this could be *very* useful for virtualization,
> > where you are adding/removing interfaces from the bridge often. Why?
> > Because it eliminates the need to dynamically create/remove ebtables
> > rules and keep them in sync with the interfaces on the bridge.
>
> If you had sets of interfaces, like you can have sets of ip addresses
> today, it would be trivial to keep the sets in sync.
>
> I don't find it particularly as it is, but with interface-sets you
> wouldn't even have to change any rules.

Yes, sets would be nice. However I wonder if this case isn't a bug
in any case:
Consider these VLANS:
 eth0.4042
 eth0.4043
 eth0.4044

Add them to a bridge and the bridge will pass pkgs between them, right?
However no real switch I know would do that because they are on
the same physical interface.
I think the bridge needs to check the physical interface too and don't
forward pkgs back on the same physical interface.

 Jocke

_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge