Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:20:22PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a écrit : >>Hi Nicolas, >> >>Thank you for answering my question. >>Actually this is what I want to achieve: >> >>eth0----+ +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machines >> | | >> +----bond0----+----br0---(LAN) >> | | >>eth1----+ +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machines > >Hi Leonardo, > >I'm not sure recent kernels allow for a given interface to be a port >for a bridge and the base interface for vlan interfaces at the same >time. This might be particularly true for 2.6.38 or 2.6.38+, because >of the new rx_handler usage. This topology is not legit and should/will be prohibited. Only consider that you have + br0.100 device on top of br0. Where should the packet go? I suggest to consider topology change. > >cc: netdev and Jiri Pirko, for advices. For the history of the thread, see: > >http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=1300914794.32252.68.camel%40bordalnx& >forum_name=bonding-devel > >>br0 --> br0 in my understanding is an untagged vlan therefore it >>provides access to my LAN. So i am able to access that server from my >>internal network. >>br0-100 and br0-200 -> Vlans over a bridged interface will allow me to >>have many virtual machines in the same vlan on each bridged interface. >> >>I am misunderstanding concepts, maybe? >>If you need to do further tests I have a test environment ready for use. >> >>Leonardo _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge