From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 16 23:29:06 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2DB16A4CE; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.mail.sonic.net (b.mail.sonic.net [64.142.19.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116F143D53; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:29:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmah@tomcat.kitchenlab.org) Received: from tomcat.kitchenlab.org (adsl-64-142-31-107.sonic.net [64.142.31.107]) by b.mail.sonic.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3H6T39O001230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:29:03 -0700 Received: from tomcat.kitchenlab.org (localhost.kitchenlab.org [127.0.0.1]) i3H6T39s097439; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:29:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmah@tomcat.kitchenlab.org) Message-Id: <200404170629.i3H6T39s097439@tomcat.kitchenlab.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Andrew Thompson In-Reply-To: <20040417060307.GC67219@kate.fud.org.nz> References: <20040417035758.GA66806@kate.fud.org.nz> <20040417055549.GB81778@ip.net.ua> <20040417060307.GC67219@kate.fud.org.nz> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Thompson message dated "Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:03:07 +1200." From: "Bruce A. Mah" X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A 2V%N&+ X-Image-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Images/bmah-cisco-small.gif X-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1317231359P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:29:03 -0700 Sender: bmah@tomcat.kitchenlab.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: bmah@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:29:06 -0000 --==_Exmh_1317231359P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 08:55:49AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:57:58PM +1200, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedb > ack. > > > My main question is, 'do people want this in the tree?' > > > > > > > > > The benefits over the current bridge are: > > > * ability to manage the bridge table > > > * spanning tree support > > > * the snazzy brconfig utility > > > * clonable pseudo-interface (is that a benefit?) > > > > > What advantages does it offer compared to the ng_bridge(4) functionality? > > > > I didnt know about that one, I guess the main advantage is that all three > *BSDs would have the same code and interface. While I imported it from NetBSD > , > it originated in OpenBSD. Thats assuming anyone cares about that sort of > thing. 1. ng_bridge(4) doesn't do spanning tree. Neither does bridge(4). 2. A problem that I saw was that ng_bridge(4) didn't interact very well with IPFilter...specifically, I recall that IPFilter rules had no effect on bridged packets. This was a problem when I was trying to add filtered bridging to m0n0wall...the maintainer and I eventually switched to using bridge(4)-style bridging after resolving a few other problems. Don't know how important those are in the grand scheme of things, but those are a couple of real, functional differences. Cheers, Bruce. --==_Exmh_1317231359P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5+ 20020506 iD8DBQFAgM6u2MoxcVugUsMRAvoBAKDepyTPhu421D8DWegsoKpFrhVWZQCgoMz6 r6KTQSf0Q1Rha0MVHrAVKBQ= =R6Db -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1317231359P--