Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:22:12 +1200 From: Andrew Thompson <thompsa@freebsd.org> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bridges Message-ID: <20050925002212.GA77857@heff.fud.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <20050924192237.GP40237@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> References: <200509241525.16173.max@love2party.net> <20050924192237.GP40237@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 05:22:38AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Sat, 2005-Sep-24 15:25:06 +0200, Max Laier wrote: > >for some time now, we have three bridge implementations in the tree: > > - net/bridge.c - the "old" bridge > > - net/if_bridge.c - the "new" bridge from Net/OpenBSD > > - netgraph/ng_bridge.c - the netgraph version [1] > > > >The new code has several advantages over the old version: > > - Spanning Tree Protocol (802.1D) > > - better firewall support (IPv6, stateful filtering, ...) > > - easy ifconfig(8) configuration > > Since I've recently needed it, neither bridge.c nor if_bridge.c allow > you to bridge VLAN trunks (you can bridge individual VLANs but that > becomes unwieldly when you have dozens of VLANs). I have code to do > this in bridge.c. I'd like to see what you have done here, can I look at the patch. > > >Please test the new alternative if you are using the old one still. > > Has anyone looked at how difficult it would be to get if_bridge.c to > work in 5.x? http://people.freebsd.org/~thompsa/if_bridge-5stable.20050907.diff Ive posted it for testing before but didnt get a response, care to try it out? Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050925002212.GA77857>