Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758392AbZC0Juh (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:50:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755131AbZC0JuP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:50:15 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:41879 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755409AbZC0JuN (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:50:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:47:32 +0100 From: Jiri Pirko To: Patrick McHardy Cc: David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, shemminger@linux-foundation.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, fubar@us.ibm.com, bonding-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mschmidt@redhat.com, dada1@cosmosbay.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: allow bond in mode balance-alb to work properly in bridge -try4 Message-ID: <20090327094731.GB4582@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> References: <20090313183303.GF3436@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090326155205.GA28868@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <20090327.003819.234492275.davem@davemloft.net> <49CC85E9.7070903@trash.net> <20090327084138.GA4582@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com> <49CC948B.8020005@trash.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49CC948B.8020005@trash.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1664 Lines: 36 Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 09:55:39AM CET, kaber@trash.net wrote: > Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:53:13AM CET, kaber@trash.net wrote: >>> > >>> > Me neither, but I don't think this approach can be done without the >>> > hook. While I still find it questionable whether this mode really >>> > needs to be supported for a bridge at all >> >> Well there is I think nothing unusual in this net scheme. And by for example >> the increasing setups with kvm/bridging it will be needed more and more. > > Mangling ARP packets for load-balancing purposes seems quite unusual. Well, there are many unusual things, that do not imply that they should not be supported... >>> , an alternative approach >>> would be to have bonding add FDB entries for all secondary MACs to >>> make bridging treat them as local. >> >> Yes - that is the clear way. But there's not really straihtforward way to do >> this. The clear approach would be to extend struct net_device for list of these >> mac addresses and let the drivers (binding) fill it and bridge to process it. >> But I don't know. > > We have a list of secondary unicast addresses, but that might not > be suitable in this case since the addresses are (mostly) intended > not to be visible to the stack if I understood correctly. I agree this list is not suitable for this - it's used for different purpose and I think it would be not wise to mix it with what we want... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/