On ons, mar 23, 2022 at 16:43, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 01:49:32PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote: >> >> Does someone have an idea why there at this point is no option to add a >> >> dynamic fdb entry? >> >> >> >> The fdb added entries here do not age out, while the ATU entries do >> >> (after 5 min), resulting in unsynced ATU vs fdb. >> > >> > I think the expectation is to use br_fdb_external_learn_del() if the >> > externally learned entry expires. The bridge should not age by itself >> > FDB entries learned externally. >> > >> >> It seems to me that something is missing then? >> My tests using trafgen that I gave a report on to Lunn generated massive >> amounts of fdb entries, but after a while the ATU was clean and the fdb >> was still full of random entries... > > I'm no longer sure where you are, sorry.. > I think we discussed that you need to enable ATU age interrupts in order > to keep the ATU in sync with the bridge FDB? Which means either to > delete the locked FDB entries from the bridge when they age out in the > ATU, or to keep refreshing locked ATU entries. > So it seems that you're doing neither of those 2 things if you end up > with bridge FDB entries which are no longer in the ATU. Right, there was much that needed my attention, so after the other issues are taken care of, I can focus on this. So I thought there was some general machanism in place already, but I see that Ineed to enable the IntOnAgeOut interrupt and handle ATU age out violations.
