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
