Andy Gospodarek wrote: > Configurations like this can get tricky at times. Though it seems to > make perfect sense to put two interfaces like this in the same bridge > the current setup of the linux networking stack makes it hard to get > things working sometimes. Let me make sure I can understand what you > are trying to accomplish. Do you want to prevent traffic from vlan 2 > and vlan 3 from ever talking while still allowing them to talk to the > gateway? Will you want vlan 2 and vlan3 to communicate with each > other at all? > Well, the plan is to let the vlans communicate together 'freely', for now. I'm essentially using the vlan tag as a way to 'figure out' where the packet is coming from. The network spans a little over 100km in a large, flat /22 subnet. I wish I could do this the usual way with subnets and what not, but we don't really control the routing and gateway side of things. So basically, we want to assign a vlan to each branch of the network and avoid having to add a new NIC to the bridge each time we add a new branch. Feeding it a trunk into it and adding vlan interfaces as needed works better for us since bandwidth is not really the limiting factor. Well, it would be better if it worked :P Now I fully understand that it's not how 90% of people would approach this, including myself, but it's the only option we have given what's on either side of the bridge, which we can't change right now. The alternative is having a switch split the trunk and then feed that into real (as opposed to vlan) interfaces on the bridge, wich I haven't fully tested yet but am sure would work fine. I'd rather focus on solving the bridged vlan thing though, it just might be useful to someone else someday and definitely falls into the 'should work' category as far as I'm concerned. Jonathan P.S.: Sorry, forgot to reply to the list. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
