RE: [net-next PATCH] net: allow vlan traffic to be received under bond

On 10/13/2011 8:59 AM, Hans Schillström wrote:

quoted

Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:04:34PM CEST, mbizon@freebox.fr wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 00:37 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:

quoted

Hmm, I must look at this again tomorrow but I have strong feeling this
will break some some scenario including vlan-bridge-macvlan.

unless I'm mistaken, today's behaviour:

# vconfig add eth0 100
# brctl addbr br0
# brctl addif br0 eth0

=> eth0.100 gets no more packets, br0.100 is to be used

after the patch won't we get the opposite ?

Looks like it. The question is what is the correct behaviour...

I think this it become correct now, you should not destroy lover level if possible.
I.e. as John wrote "it's not an unexpected behaviour"

Consider adding a bridge to a vlan like this

vconfig add eth0 100
brctl addbr br1
brctl addif br1 eth0.100

If you later add a bridge (or bond) should the previous added bridge still work ?
Yes I think so, for me it's the expected behaviour.

brctl addbr br0
brctl addif br0 eth0

Sorry I'm not entirely sure I followed the above two posts. Note
this patch restores behavior that has existed for most of the
2.6.x kernels. In the 3.x kernels VLAN100 is dropped in the
schematic below (assuming eth0 is active), I think this is
incorrect.

     ---> eth0.100
      |
      |
eth0 -----> br0

With this patch VLAN100 is delivered to eth0.100 as I expect. Now
adding a VLAN100 to br0.


      ---> eth0.100
      |
      |
eth0 -----> br0---> br0.100

With this patch in the above case VLAN100 is delivered to the
first matching vlan. Here eth0.100 will receive the packet If
you really want br0.100 to receive the packet remove eth0.100.
Without this patch the packet will be delivered to br0.100,
but no configuration will allow a packet to be delivered to
eth0.100 with a bond.

The first schematic is used for doing bonding on LAN traffic
and SAN (storage) traffic with MPIO. So I think my expectations
are correct and have a real use case.

Thanks,
John

Sorry if I caused confusion,  I do agree with you to 100%.

Regards
Hans