Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 05:22:38 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bridges Message-ID: <20050924192237.GP40237@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200509241525.16173.max@love2party.net> References: <200509241525.16173.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. >and would have to do it twice, for example) I would like to retire the old >bridge code soon. This should happen in HEAD only and thus the old bridge >will stay for all of FreeBSD 6 unless more aggressive depreciation is >requested. Since if_bridge.c does not exist in FreeBSD 5, and there has not previously been any suggestion that bridge.c is deprecated, I would object to the removal of bridge.c from FreeBSD 6 since this would violate the standard deprecation cycle. >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? -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050924192237.GP40237>