From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta•com>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech•com>
Cc: Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a•nosense.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash•net>,
netdev@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is it valid to add a macvlan virtual interface to a bridge? If so, there seems to be a bug with it.
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:26:08 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081205162608.43ab0864@s6510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4939C269.4010609@candelatech.com>
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:08:09 -0800
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech•com> wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Would handling of frames for promiscuous macvlan interfaces be quite
> > similar to handling of incoming broadcast and multicast frames e.g.
> > for an incoming frame, walk through the list of macvlan interfaces (or
> > a separate list of promiscuous macvlan interfaces) that are currently in
> > promiscuous mode, and hand them a copy of the incoming frame?
>
> That could probably work.
>
> >> You might try using a pair of VETH interfaces to bridge between
> >> your host and virtual host.
> >>
> >
> > What I was fundamentally trying to achieve was to avoid using any more
> > than one physical interface on the box (excepting a separate
> > management interface) to do this testing. While I happened to have
> > another unused interface I could bridge this virtual host onto, in some
> > cases you might not. Conceptually when using them, it is very easy to
> > think of the macvlan interfaces as nothing very different to having
> > multiple physical interfaces sitting on the same LAN segment. In my
> > scenario, bridging only one of them for this specific case of a
> > virtual guest host seemed like quite a logical thing to do.
> >
> > Would veth interfaces facilitate the sharing of a single physical
> > interface between bridged and non-bridged processes on the host?
>
> A Veth pair is like two ports linked back to each other..what is tx'd on one
> is rx'd on the other.
>
> You could probably add eth0, veth1a, veth2a to a bridge,
> then add macvlans on veth1b and have your virtual guest
> talk to veth2b.
>
> I do similar things with my redirdev devices, which are almost identical
> to veths, so I think it will work.
>
Why bother, a macvlan is just a special case of a bridge, so why not
just bridge everything?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-06 0:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-04 10:03 Is it valid to add a macvlan virtual interface to a bridge? If so, there seems to be a bug with it Mark Smith
2008-12-04 13:01 ` Patrick McHardy
2008-12-05 17:43 ` Ben Greear
2008-12-05 22:54 ` Mark Smith
2008-12-06 0:08 ` Ben Greear
2008-12-06 0:26 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2008-12-06 0:43 ` Ben Greear
2008-12-18 3:44 ` Herbert Xu
2009-01-12 4:55 ` Patrick McHardy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081205162608.43ab0864@s6510 \
--to=shemminger@vyatta$(echo .)com \
--cc=greearb@candelatech$(echo .)com \
--cc=ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a$(echo .)nosense.org \
--cc=kaber@trash$(echo .)net \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox