Ross Vandegrift <ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 14/06/2009 01:04:53:
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 08:32:31PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > Ross Vandegrift <ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 13/06/2009 18:56:40:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 05:45:47PM +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > I would really like to read up on the claim that each VLAN is also a physical port.
> > > > Any pointers?
> > >
> > > Note that you added the VLAN tagged subinterface to the bridge. Using
> > > brctl's functions, you'll be able to see the port numbers assigned to
> > > each port. You'll be able to display the MACs learned on each port,
> > > along with each port's ID.
> >
> > And ...? Sorry, but I don't see anything about VLAN==physical interface.
> > I suppose the MACs learned will be different, but how does that matter?
>
> Let me put it another way. What distinguishes eth0, eth1, and eth0.10
> when you bridge them together?
>
> Nothing - one gets untagged frames from the interface associated with
> eth0. One gets untagged frames from the interface associated with
> eth1. The last gets tagged frames from the interface associated with
> eth0. I don't see how there's any distinction between these roles.
> Each is just a source & sink for frames. Some end up using the same
> cable, but who cares?
>
So it seems. I got a lot of opposition w.r.t my patch so I will stop now.
I did learn something new so it wasn't a waste of time.
Thanks for your patience explaining this to me.
Jocke
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
