Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] Non-promisc bidge ports support

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:59:29 -0500

On 02/26/14 10:18, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> This patch series is a complete re-design and re-implementation of
> prior attempts to support non-promiscuous bridge ports.
>
> The basic design is as follows.  The bridge keeps track of
> all the ports that flood packets to unknown destinations.  If
> the flooding is disabled on the port, to get traffic to flow
> through, user/management would need to add an fdb describing
> such traffic.  When such fdb is added, we save the address
> to bridge private hardware address list.

Entering the addresses in the uc list on other bridgeports seems
reasonable for the scenario described.
But would it _also_ need to be added to the fdb of the bridge?
i.e how does the bridge (if the packet was to be handed to it)
know where to forward?
BTW: on the comment that flooding off implies learning off: I would like
to be able to turn off flooding on a specific bridge port but
still want to learn from it. I dont think those two are mutually
exclusive.

cheers,
jamal