On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:57:04 -0800
John Fastabend [off-list ref] wrote:
On 2/14/2012 5:18 AM, jamal wrote:
quoted
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 07:13 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
quoted
The use case here is multiple VFs but the same solution should work with
multiple PFs as well. FDB controls should be independent of how the ports
are exposed VFs, PFs, VMDQ/queue pairs, macvlan, etc.
Makes sense.
quoted
With events and ADD/DEL/GET FDB controls we can solve both cases. This also
solves Roopa's case with macvlan where she wants to add additional addresses
to macvlan ports.
Not familiar with that issue - I'll prowl the list.
Roopa was likely on the right track here,
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/123064/
But I think the proper syntax is to use the existing PF_BRIDGE:RTM_XXX
netlink messages. And if possible drive this without extending ndo_ops.
An ideal user space interaction IMHO would look like,
[root@jf-dev1-dcblab iproute2]# ./br/br fdb add 52:e5:62:7b:57:88 dev veth10
[root@jf-dev1-dcblab iproute2]# ./br/br fdb
port mac addr flags
veth2 36:a6:35:9b:96:c4 local
veth4 aa:54:b0:7b:42:ef local
veth0 2a:e8:5c:95:6c:1b local
veth6 6e:26:d5:43:a3:36 local
veth0 f2:c1:39:76:6a:fb
veth8 4e:35:16:af:87:13 local
veth10 52:e5:62:7b:57:88 static
veth10 aa:a9:35:21:15:c4 local
[root@jf-dev1-dcblab iproute2]# ./br/br fdb add dev eth3 to 52:e5:62:7b:57:88
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
I am going to put bridge (nameclash with br) tool into iproute2 (soon).