search for: enslaved

What is the maximum number of devices that can be enslaved in a bridge interface? I have tried enslaving 512 devices. Although the brctl tool did not complain while adding them, when I use brctl show command it only shows 255. Thanks

...0 br0: 51341 341 0 0 0 0 0 0 35324 277 0 0 0 0 0 0 I wonder the meaning of the value of the br0, it's Rx/Tx packets is less than both eth0 and eth1. what's the relationship of the values between bridge and it's enslaved NIC? Thanks for your comments on this.

On 3 December 2017 at 07:05, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:08:59PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> > > Re. problem #2: >> > > Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the

On 3 December 2017 at 07:05, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:08:59PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> > > Re. problem #2: >> > > Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the

Ahoy, I've encountered some confusing semantics with using PACKET(7) sockets on bridge-enslaved interfaces. Specifically, if my socket accepts all types of frame (bind() to ETH_P_ALL) then it gets all packets; but if it accepts any specific type (e.g. ETH_P_IP), then it receives no packets at all. That is how it's coded in net/core/dev.c's netif_receive_skb(). First ETH_P_ALL handler...

Setting up bonding in active-backup mode 1 (using ARP monitoring) on a server, it looked OK, but pulling the active link cable didn't actually work, it didn't fail over. Eventually with manual playing around with modprobe, ifconfig, ifenslave, etc., a solution was stumbled upon: enslave the eth1 device before eth0, and all is good. Why this should matter is a puzzle - I could not find

Hi all Assume that you have a linux bridge with two interfaces eth0 and eth1 enslaved to this bridge What is the difference between sniffing the bridge and sniffing its interfaces? tcpdump -i br0 vs tcpdump -i eth0 Thanks MiniME -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bridge/attachmen...

...show up as "ethN_vf" on Hyper-V which is user friendly. > > Patch is pending. While it's good to show VF with specific naming to indicate enslavement, I wonder wouldn't it be better to hide this netdev at all from the user space? IMHO this extra device is useless when being enslaved and we may delegate controls (e.g. ethtool) over to the para-virtual device instead? That way it's possible to eliminate the possibility of additional udev setup or modification? I'm not sure if this is consistent with Windows guest or not, but I don't find it _Linux_ user friendly th...

...show up as "ethN_vf" on Hyper-V which is user friendly. > > Patch is pending. While it's good to show VF with specific naming to indicate enslavement, I wonder wouldn't it be better to hide this netdev at all from the user space? IMHO this extra device is useless when being enslaved and we may delegate controls (e.g. ethtool) over to the para-virtual device instead? That way it's possible to eliminate the possibility of additional udev setup or modification? I'm not sure if this is consistent with Windows guest or not, but I don't find it _Linux_ user friendly th...

...hine nics') You would also miss the hypervisors/hosts traffic if you sniffed the contained nics. -Joel On 16 February 2015 at 15:35, The Q <theq at rogers.com> wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > Assume that you have a linux bridge with two interfaces eth0 and eth1 > enslaved to this bridge > > What is the difference between sniffing the bridge and sniffing its > interfaces? > > > > tcpdump -i br0 vs tcpdump ?i eth0 > > > > Thanks > > MiniME > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:48:13 -0400 Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at oracle.com> wrote: > When a netdev appears through hot plug then gets enslaved by a failover > master that is already up and running, the slave will be opened > right away after getting enslaved. Today there's a race that userspace > (udev) may fail to rename the slave if the kernel (net_failover) > opens the slave earlier than when the userspace rename happen...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:48:13 -0400 Si-Wei Liu <si-wei.liu at oracle.com> wrote: > When a netdev appears through hot plug then gets enslaved by a failover > master that is already up and running, the slave will be opened > right away after getting enslaved. Today there's a race that userspace > (udev) may fail to rename the slave if the kernel (net_failover) > opens the slave earlier than when the userspace rename happen...

Hello, I am working on Network-Simulation (VNUML). Our simulator uses linux bridgi= ng to connect the UMLs. So there is one problem: The example is the following: There are two hosts simulating one big net. The two hosts have connection over the external nets Net3 and Net6 (see htt= p://www.uni-koblenz.de/~timbub/verteilteSim3.GIF), but in fact there is onl= y one physical connection between the

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:47AM -0400, Si-Wei Liu wrote: > When a netdev appears through hot plug then gets enslaved by a failover > master that is already up and running, the slave will be opened > right away after getting enslaved. Today there's a race that userspace > (udev) may fail to rename the slave if the kernel (net_failover) > opens the slave earlier than when the userspace rename happen...

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:52:47AM -0400, Si-Wei Liu wrote: > When a netdev appears through hot plug then gets enslaved by a failover > master that is already up and running, the slave will be opened > right away after getting enslaved. Today there's a race that userspace > (udev) may fail to rename the slave if the kernel (net_failover) > opens the slave earlier than when the userspace rename happen...

On 3 December 2017 at 19:35, Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:14:37 +0200 > achiad shochat <achiad.mellanox at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3 December 2017 at 07:05, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:08:59PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2017

On 3 December 2017 at 19:35, Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:14:37 +0200 > achiad shochat <achiad.mellanox at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3 December 2017 at 07:05, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:08:59PM -0800, Shannon Nelson wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2017

On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> Re. problem #2: >> Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the VF driver >> netdev under a persistent anchor netdev. >> And it's indeed desired to allow (but not enforce) PV netdev and VF >> netdev to work in conjunction.

On 11/30/2017 6:11 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:08:45AM +0200, achiad shochat wrote: >> Re. problem #2: >> Indeed the best way to address it seems to be to enslave the VF driver >> netdev under a persistent anchor netdev. >> And it's indeed desired to allow (but not enforce) PV netdev and VF >> netdev to work in conjunction.

On 30 November 2017 at 05:29, Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 2017?11?29? 03:27, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: >> >> Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on a proposal to enhance virtio-net >> to ease configuration of a VM and that would enable live migration of >> passthrough network SR-IOV devices. >> >> Today we have SR-IOV