[Bridge] RFC: Simple Private VLAN impl.

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet at amorsen.dk> wrote on 13/06/2009 01:54:30:
>
> Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> writes:
>
> > But why should I not be able to add both 4043 and 4044 to the same bridge?
>
> Of course you should. And they should behave as a proper bridge, letting
> packets flow as they were meant to.

You have some other definition of a "proper bridge". A common bridge would not
care about the VLANs and never return a pkg on the same interface.

> Unless you decide that local policy
> does not permit packets to flow freely, and then you use ebtables to
> apply that local policy.
>
> > I just sent a patch to add split horizon support to the linux bridge. Have
> > a look. More power to the linux bridge that way.
>
> You have already been shown that you can achieve what you want with the
> existing kernel code, at the cost of a somewhat complicated rule setup.
> You have also been shown ways to simplify this rule setup.

Yes, I have already worked around this, but it doesn't make it right.
I just want the bridge to do the right thing and I think the current behavior
isn't it.

>
> I really hope that your patches are not accepted. Sorry if this is
> harsh, but the company I work for has in the past depended on the
> flexibility of the existing code. While that company is currently
> migrating to proprietary solutions because PC's don't get faster at the
> rate which traffic grows, it seems ridiculous that Linux should copy the
> limitations of less capable platforms.

You still have that flexibility. Turn it off and you are free to shoot yourself
in the foot.