Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > But why should I not be able to add both 4043 and 4044 to the same bridge? Of course you should. And they should behave as a proper bridge, letting packets flow as they were meant to. Unless you decide that local policy does not permit packets to flow freely, and then you use ebtables to apply that local policy. > I just sent a patch to add split horizon support to the linux bridge. Have > a look. More power to the linux bridge that way. You have already been shown that you can achieve what you want with the existing kernel code, at the cost of a somewhat complicated rule setup. You have also been shown ways to simplify this rule setup. I really hope that your patches are not accepted. Sorry if this is harsh, but the company I work for has in the past depended on the flexibility of the existing code. While that company is currently migrating to proprietary solutions because PC's don't get faster at the rate which traffic grows, it seems ridiculous that Linux should copy the limitations of less capable platforms. /Benny _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
