Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:26:06 +0200 From: Daniel Ponticello <daniel@skytek.it> To: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> Cc: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru>, stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 7-STABLE: bridge and em Message-ID: <483D171E.90109@skytek.it> In-Reply-To: <20080528075432.GA48519@megatron.madpilot.net> References: <72197513@bs1.sp34.ru> <20080528075432.GA48519@megatron.madpilot.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Guido Falsi ha scritto: > I discovered the same thing while experimenting with qemu and bridgeng. > I think it simply works different from (for example) widnows bridging. > > I think it's meant to be like that. > > It also looks more logical either. I think of the bridge as just a > packet router, which routes them to all the interfaces(physical and > virtual as well) so if the bridge intercepts them with it's own address > they can't ereach other interfaces, obviosusly. > > Maybe I'm wrong here? > > No, you are absolutely right! This is how bridging works. It is not necessary for the birdge interface to have its own mac address, since it will just forward the ethernet frame to all interfaces that are part of the bridge device, with an exception for the interface that received the frame. Later, when the bridge learns the mac address location, it will just forward the ethernet frame to the correct interface. Therefore, if the frame destination is the mac address of the bridge, it will not forward it, since it simply already arrived at destination. Daniel -- WBR, Cordiali Saluti, Daniel Ponticello, VP of Engineering Network Coordination Centre of Skytek --- - For further information about our services: - Please visit our website at http://www.Skytek.it ---
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?483D171E.90109>