Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 13/06/2009 01:54:30: > > 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. You have some other definition of a "proper bridge". A common bridge would not care about the VLANs and never return a pkg on the same interface. > 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. Yes, I have already worked around this, but it doesn't make it right. I just want the bridge to do the right thing and I think the current behavior isn't it. > > 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. You still have that flexibility. Turn it off and you are free to shoot yourself in the foot. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
