search for: mac_b

Ben Greear wrote: > Well, it seems we could and should fix veth to work, but it will have > to do equivalent work of copying an skb most likely, so either way > you'll probably get a big performance hit. Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding performance where

Ben Greear wrote: > Well, it seems we could and should fix veth to work, but it will have > to do equivalent work of copying an skb most likely, so either way > you'll probably get a big performance hit. Using the same pktgen script (i.e with clone=0) I see that a veth-->bridge-->veth configuration gives about 400K PPS forwarding performance where

...39;s a static FDB entry when you asked for a dynamic one" is incorrect, it is possible to imagine a scenario like below, where this decision could lead to packet loss: Step 1: management prepares FDB entries like this: bridge fdb add dev swp0 ${MAC_A} master dynamic bridge fdb add dev swp2 ${MAC_B} master dynamic br0 / | \ / | \ swp0 swp1 swp2 | | A B Step 2: station A migrates to swp1 (assume that swp0's link doesn't flap during that time so that the port isn't flushed, for example station A was behind an intermediary swit...

...t; asked for a dynamic one" is incorrect, it is possible to imagine a > scenario like below, where this decision could lead to packet loss: > > Step 1: management prepares FDB entries like this: > > bridge fdb add dev swp0 ${MAC_A} master dynamic > bridge fdb add dev swp2 ${MAC_B} master dynamic > > br0 > / | \ > / | \ > swp0 swp1 swp2 > | | > A B > > Step 2: station A migrates to swp1 (assume that swp0's link doesn't flap > during that time so that the port isn't flushed, for...