Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 09:55:39AM CET, kaber@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:53:13AM CET, kaber@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> > >>> > Me neither, but I don't think this approach can be done without the >>> > hook. While I still find it questionable whether this mode really >>> > needs to be supported for a bridge at all >> >> Well there is I think nothing unusual in this net scheme. And by for example >> the increasing setups with kvm/bridging it will be needed more and more. > > Mangling ARP packets for load-balancing purposes seems quite unusual. Well, there are many unusual things, that do not imply that they should not be supported... >>> , an alternative approach >>> would be to have bonding add FDB entries for all secondary MACs to >>> make bridging treat them as local. >> >> Yes - that is the clear way. But there's not really straihtforward way to do >> this. The clear approach would be to extend struct net_device for list of these >> mac addresses and let the drivers (binding) fill it and bridge to process it. >> But I don't know. > > We have a list of secondary unicast addresses, but that might not > be suitable in this case since the addresses are (mostly) intended > not to be visible to the stack if I understood correctly. I agree this list is not suitable for this - it's used for different purpose and I think it would be not wise to mix it with what we want... _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
