On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 09:48 +0100, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> Since it can lead to problems (address database mismatches, doesn't
> correctly handle STP transitions or topology changes automatically),
> I think it should be avoided whenever possible. I don't see any
> advantages of hardware based learning over software based learning
> anyway ('flexibility' doesn't seem like a very good argument).
Indeed address mismatches may happen if you have two databases.
You have two choices then:
Do learning in user space or be able to tolerate some transient
inconsistency (if you have some software that lazily looks at the
database). But there is a case where the database sits only in hardware.
In such a case, you cant have mismatches.
I think the STP problem can be handled by user space regardless of
whether address mismatch happens or not.
> It should be doable along the lines of the current DSA patch --
> add a VLAN ID argument to the interface add/remove callbacks, and
> when a VLAN virtual interface is added to the bridge, call the
> relevant callbacks with the parent interface + VLAN ID instead.
> (This doesn't work for stacked VLANs, but the current net/dsa
> supported chips don't handle those anyway.)
Sounds like a good start - we could have a different interface for
stacked variants. I think you should push in the patch.
cheers,
jamal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
