On 5/30/14, 7:36 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2014 18:53:36 -0700
Roopa Prabhu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 5/28/14, 1:00 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:

quoted

On 05/28/2014 01:40 AM, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:

quoted

From: Roopa Prabhu <redacted>

(This patch depends on net-next patch titled
"Add bridge ifindex to bridge fdb notify msgs")

This patch adds master dev name from NDA_MASTER netlink attribute
   to bridge fdb show output

current iproute2 tries to print 'master' in the output if NTF_MASTER
is present. But, kernel today does not set NTF_MASTER during dump
requests. Which means I have not seen iproute2 bridge cmd print 'master' atall.
This patch overrides the NTF_MASTER flag if NDA_MASTER attribute is present.

Example output:

before this patch:
# bridge fdb show
44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 permanent
44:38:39:00:27:bb dev bond4.2003 permanent
44:38:39:00:27:bc dev bond2.2004 permanent

After this patch:
# bridge fdb show
44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 master br-2003 permanent
44:38:39:00:27:bb dev bond4.2003 master br-2003 permanent
44:38:39:00:27:bc dev bond2.2004 master br-2004 permanent

'master' is already a reserved word in the bridge command and
has a slightly different connotation. May be replace it with
'bridge' or something similar.

I am not so convinced about the 'bridge' keyword. The way i see it is: I
am just adding more context to the existing 'master' keyword. In the
cases i am pointing out above 'master' is a bridge.
If the only argument is that it changes existing output, ...i agree. I
have expressed slight concerns about that before.

quoted

quoted

For comparision with the above, below is the output for NTF_SELF today,
# bridge fdb show
33:33:00:00:00:01 dev eth0 self permanent
01:00:5e:00:00:01 dev eth0 self permanent
33:33:ff:00:01:cc dev eth0 self permanent

If change in output is a concern, 'master' can be put at the end of the fdb
output line or made optional with -d[etails] option.

As Stephen always mentions, iproute commands have to be invertable.
In other words, what you get out of the show command you should
be able to feed back into a set command.

As such, it would probably be a good thing to support
bridge fdb set 44:38:39:00:27:ba dev bond2.2003 bridge br-2003 permanent

We did discuss this on the other thread (RFC), and it does not seem
necessary.
two things:
- like i indicated above, introducing 'bridge' to mean  'master' seems
to add more confusion and
seems redundant. But, maybe that's just me.
- having user specify master when kernel can derive it
seems unnecessary (agree that for code symmetry we could add master
during sets but make it optional)

quoted

and I think this ends up being something very close to what
Jamal already proposed.

May be work together and come up with a single syntax.

Ack.
looking at jamals patch for fdb show filters,  if i consider my approach
of using 'master' to represent a bridge,
his syntax would look like,

bridge fdb {show} [dev DEV]
bridge fdb {show} [dev DEV] [master BRDEV]

I prefer bridge keyword since master is not used in IEEE 802
documents.

but set also uses 'master' ..and the bridge is referenced using 'master' 
in almost all commands
#ip link set dev brport master brdev

so, using 'bridge' and 'master' interchangeably seems a bit confusing.

But, if  the preference is 'bridge' i will resubmit this patch with 
'bridge' shortly.

Thanks!.