Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 18:15:06 +0100 From: "Rogier R. Mulhuijzen" <drwilco@drwilco.nl> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch for non-netgraph bridge code worthy of attentionforpeople experimenting with bridging setups (including ng_bridge) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20010203180653.00afda70@mail.bsdchicks.com> In-Reply-To: <3A7C3A89.AC30DFDA@elischer.org> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20010202205233.00d51c30@mail.drwilco.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20010203122412.00cd4b30@mail.drwilco.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>ok I understand now... >I thought you were saying that the netgraph code was acting differently >to how I belive it should act. Nope that was the legacy bridge. > > Exactly if there's just one interface when netgraph bridging is on. Why? > > Why just one interface? Now that my kernel is patched to behave like BRIDGE > > wasn't compiled in when I switch it off I can include the upper's of > > multiple interfaces in a single netgraph bridge. > >sure you can. >that isn't a problem. >It would be a 'brouter' bridging non IP protocols and routing IP. > > > > > If you think about it, this should not even be a problem. > > > > Look at this diagram http://www.bsdchicks.com/bridge-examples.gif (my > > apologies to everyone who can't look at graphical stuff) > >ok I understan.. my question is: >Do you know the girl on http://www.bsdchicks.com/ >and is she single? :-) Hahahaha, I don't have a clue who she is, and I'd love to know too =) >It should be valid.. and I start to see your point. > >by adding the checks back in (or compiling without BRIDGE) >you can have both interfaces.... Exactly > > What is the difference between figures 1 and 2? Except that one uses a > > switch, and the other uses just a FreeBSD box. > >yep > > > > > The way packets travel is almost identical. Why wouldn't it be a valid > setup? > >Another possibility would be to make a change to the netgraph bridge code >so that it only delivers a broadcast packet to ONE local 'upper' hook. I wouldn't do that. You'd be adding behaviour that people wouldn't expect, and make it a messy unlogical thing. If people want it delivered on one upper hook, they should include just that one hook. Why make "user friendly" logic that makes it complicated and bothersome for people who want to do more than just the standard things. > > You say that interfaces included in the ng_bridge should not have their > > upper's included as well, except for one. > >I didn't mean that they COULDN'T but only that they didn't NEED it Eek. Misunderstood, my apologies. > > Right now my FreeBSD box is routing between 3 networks and sometimes even > > bridging between all 3 and it works perfectly. > > > >Using netgraph or the other bridging? I presume Netgraph. You are correct. Because I also have my uplink to the internet and I don't want packets "leaking" out to there. My provider might want to start wondering what all these subnets are etc. 2 of the three networks are even on the other side of tunnels built with vtun to Linux and other FreeBSD boxes. Those other networks are also linked to more. Among other things we can now play IPX games over the internet without any hassle =) > > But like I said, my patch has nothing to do with netgraph. When > > net.link.ether.bridge == 0 the kernel should behave like a kernel that > > doesn't have BRIDGE compiled in it. That's currently not the case and my > > patch fixes that. > >OK I will commit it. Thanks. DocWilco To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.0.20010203180653.00afda70>