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
