Hi all, I miss the previously available PER_DEVICE bind-type. I don't know why it was removed in release 0.0.14 (Oct, 2000). I guess in most cases this bind-type would be prefered due to the fact: - VLAN == subnet == broadcast domain - it's closely related to bridging - it would allow per-VLAN spanning trees - ... I found other users with the same wish: http://www.candelatech.com/pipermail/vlan/2006-June/000716.html: ...the forwarding rules of bridge (br_handle_frame) needn't take care of vlan encapsulation if any as vlan tags (packet type 0x8100) will be processed before bridging code analyzes it... Or http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/bridge/2004-March/000226.html: .... 1. [SNIP] vconfig set_bind_mode PER_DEVICE [SNIP] 2. [SNIP] vconfig set_bind_mode PER_KERNEL [SNIP].... ....I lean towards the first, as it gives me more interfaces to filter, and thus more flexibility with my iptables rules.... ...The second configuration should bridge all frames (tagged or untagged), while the first will only be bridging frames with VLAN IDs of 4 or 51. I'm not sure which is your desired behaviour, but I suspect it is the first configuration which you should prefer..... Ben Greear did a great job to implement VLAN support in the kernel. Unfortunately since release 1.8 (Sep, 2003) it's somewhat sleeping. No more features.... (for example GVRP/GARP or even something like VTP). I'm also not able to write a single line of code. Anyway in general it seems there a thousands of users out there asking for solutions, dealing with this and that minors, but not really able to code something. And where are all the real coders gone who can do it like Ben and others did? Working in Seattle?? ;-) _____________________________________________________________ NEU: Ihre Photos online verwalten, mit anderen teilen und die besten Bilder gleich entwickeln lassen - GRATIS f?r den 1. Monat (exkl. Entwicklung) www.sunrise.ch/photoalbum
