Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:47:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Nick Rogness <nick@rapidnet.com> Cc: Sean Lutner <sean@rentul.net>, Nick Evans <nevans@nextvenue.com>, "'freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, "'freebsd-net@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bridging Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000707103324.65777E-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007062201160.64274-100000@rapidnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Nick Rogness wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Sean Lutner wrote: > > > > > Bridges create a broadcast zone. broadcast packets will cross the bridge > > unobstructed. > > OK. So do bridged interfaces fall within the same collision > domain?... or are they just members of the same broadcast domain? FreeBSD bridging support places nodes in the same broadcast domain, but different collision domains. As such, you may see reordering of packets between segments, and packets may be lost transitting between segments. FreeBSD's bridging support is not 802.1d-compliant for a variety of reasons, and does not support spanning tree. That said, it is adequate for many uses, including our packet filtering support, which is very useful indeed :-). That said, we might do well to look at the OpenBSD bridging code and see if we can merge the behaviors -- they have some spiffy features (which I heard about at USENIX), including MAC-address based filtering, and some sort of VPN bridged technique (which sounds very useful). Robert N M Watson robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/ PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1 TIS Labs at Network Associates, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000707103324.65777E-100000>