richardvoigt at gmail.com
2010-Jan-12 22:58 UTC
[Bridge] Re :Re: Re :Re: Bridging LACP (802.3ad) frames not working
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Ross Vandegrift <ross at kallisti.us> wrote:> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:40:30PM +0000, jhautbois at gmail.com wrote: >> This is exactly the problem. >> But, sounds like it is not possible... ? > > You could run a custom version of the bridge driver to enable bridging > of frames sent to the bridge-management MAC addresses. ?Some folks > have talked about doing similar things to enable bridging of STP. > > Doing that with STP makes a bit more sense to me (since there are > valid networks that could be constructed that way). ?But you'll be > breaking a pretty fundamental assumption of LACP....LACP is between peers, not to the nearest connected device (generally an ethernet cable). As long as the intermediate link acts just like a wire and passes everything, LACP shouldn't care. And there are some reasonable cases to want a Linux box to look like a piece of cable (e.g. wiretap, timed lockdown, satellite network simulator which inserts delay and errors, etc.) to the surrounding network. Of course, whether seeing just one link out of an aggregation bundle is useful is debatable, but Linux ought to be able to support it. I've been bitten before by adding a new switch into an STP setup and having it eat STP packets even though STP processing was disabled. So count me as another vote for (at least the possibility of) layer 1-esque transparent bridging.> > -- > Ross Vandegrift > ross at kallisti.us > > "If the fight gets hot, the songs get hotter. ?If the going gets tough, > the songs get tougher." > ? ? ? ?--Woody Guthrie > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAktM8gAACgkQMlMoONfO+HC6UwCgkLsC/ZE4ovcxX1e+A/NV3ELz > Rp4AoIFyCMtgrMYkxK2k81b9M3n6/v0U > =A5kn > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Bridge mailing list > Bridge at lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge >
Jean-Michel Hautbois
2010-Jan-13 09:26 UTC
[Bridge] Re :Re: Re :Re: Bridging LACP (802.3ad) frames not working
2010/1/12 richardvoigt at gmail.com <richardvoigt at gmail.com>:> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Ross Vandegrift <ross at kallisti.us> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:40:30PM +0000, jhautbois at gmail.com wrote: >>> This is exactly the problem. >>> But, sounds like it is not possible... ? >> >> You could run a custom version of the bridge driver to enable bridging >> of frames sent to the bridge-management MAC addresses. ?Some folks >> have talked about doing similar things to enable bridging of STP. >> >> Doing that with STP makes a bit more sense to me (since there are >> valid networks that could be constructed that way). ?But you'll be >> breaking a pretty fundamental assumption of LACP.... > > LACP is between peers, not to the nearest connected device (generally > an ethernet cable). ?As long as the intermediate link acts just like a > wire and passes everything, LACP shouldn't care. ?And there are some > reasonable cases to want a Linux box to look like a piece of cable > (e.g. wiretap, timed lockdown, satellite network simulator which > inserts delay and errors, etc.) to the surrounding network. ?Of > course, whether seeing just one link out of an aggregation bundle is > useful is debatable, but Linux ought to be able to support it. ?I've > been bitten before by adding a new switch into an STP setup and having > it eat STP packets even though STP processing was disabled. ?So count > me as another vote for (at least the possibility of) layer 1-esque > transparent bridging.I think it would be interesting to have the ability to activate this functionality. AFAIK, this could be done in the br_handle_frame function, testing the skb->protocol and comparing it with ETH_P_SLOW. This could be conditionned by a flag, and this flag would be unabled by default. Why is this a problem ? If you tell this is not good, unless you know what you are doing, where is the problem ? This is a user problem, it is a functionality. If you misuse it, this is not a kernel problem... Best Regards, JM