On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:45:40 -0400 Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/13/2013 11:39 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:12:29 -0400 > > Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 03/13/2013 02:22 AM, "Oleg A. Arkhangelsky" wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> 13.03.2013, 05:45, "Vlad Yasevich" <vyasevic@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >>> > >>>> The series adds an ability for the bridge to function in non-promiscuous mode. > >>> > >>> What is the practical applications for such setup? In other words, > >>> in which cases I would want to put bridge into non-promiscuous > >>> mode and specify some uplink ports? > >>> > >> > >> On of the applications would be when bridge is an edge device servicing > >> a VM deployment. Each of the VMs knows the mac address that the guest > >> has and may program that mac onto the uplinks. > > > > Why wouldn't that environment just use macvlan? > > Is it because changing libvirt is harder than changing the kernel? > > > > No, because macvlan has a drawback that it doesn't easily let guests > talk to the host. Bridge is still most commonly used for just that reason. > > -vlad Maybe fixing that with a flag to macvlan would be easier?
