From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 04:05:42 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 2CD6D16A4CE for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 04:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E46643D46 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 66387 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2004 11:05:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.47]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 17 Apr 2004 11:05:40 -0000 Message-ID: <40810F83.2030107@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:05:39 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 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 11:05:42 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Andrew Thompson wrote: >>Hi, >>I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedback. >>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?) > > Do we need THREE bridging systems? > If you need features you culd probably add them pretty easily to one or > the other of the existing bridging modules.. This if_bridge would replace the current bridge(4) code. It doesn't make sense to replicate that. However to keep ipfw working for bridging it needs to be converted to use the standard pfil hooks. ng_bridge is something else with a different scope of application like bridging over UDP etc. This if_bridge code supports IEEE802 spanning-tree which is spoken by all Ethernet switches. If you have larger networks it is very important to have layer 2 loop avoidance. I'm all for adapting this bridge code to FreeBSD provided that ipfw keeps working for bridging. -- Andre