> Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] net/bridge: add basic VEPA support > > On Tuesday 11 August 2009, Paul Congdon (UC Davis) wrote: > > > > > > > > The patch from Eric Biederman to allow macvlan to bridge between > > > > its slave ports is at > > > > > > > > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2009/3/9/5125774 > > > > > > Looking through the discussions here, it does not seem as if a > decision > > > was made to integrate those patches, because they would make the > > > macvlan interface behave too much like a bridge. > > Right, that question is still open, and dont't see it as very important > right now, as long as we can still use it for VEPA. > > > > Also, it seems as if there was still a problem with doing > > > multicast/broadcast delivery when enabling local VM-to-VM > > > communication. Is that solved by now? > > Not yet, but I guess it comes as a natural extension when I fix > multicast/broadcast delivery from the reflective relay for VEPA. > > The logic that I would use there is: > > broadcast from a dowstream port: > if (bridge_mode(source_port)) { > forward_to_upstream(frame); > for_each_downstream(port) { > /* deliver to all bridge ports except self, do > not deliver to any VEPA port. */ > if (bridge_mode(port) && port != source_port) { > forward_to_downstream(frame, port); > } > } > } else { > forward_to_upstream(frame); > } > > > broadcast from the upstream port > if (bridge_mode(frame.source)) { > /* comes from a port in bridge mode, so has already been > delivered to all other bridge ports */ > for_each_downstream(port) { > if (!bridge_mode(port)) { > forward_to_downstream(frame, port); > } > } > } else if (vepa_mode(frame.source)) { > /* comes from VEPA port, so need to deliver to all > bridge and all vepa ports except self */ > for_each_downstream(port) { > if (port != frame.source) > forward_to_downstream(frame, port); > } else { > /* external source, so flood to everyone */ > for_each_downstream(port) { > forward_to_downstream(frame, port); > } > > For multicast, we can do the same, or optionally add a per-port filter > as you mentioned, if it becomes a bottleneck. > > Do you think this addresses the problem, or did I miss something > important? Yes, I think this addresses the problem. It would be very useful if this functionality was in macvlan. Thanks, Anna _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
