2011/3/26 Jiri Pirko <jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:20:22PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a écrit :
>>>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.
It should be possible to have bridge for untagged (or 802.1p only)
packets independent of 802.1q tagged packets. I wonder if tag 0
devices should be expanded to have a flag that will enable handling
untagged packets by it.
Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
