From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 10 12:49:12 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4692216A41F for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:49:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from b.candler@pobox.com) Received: from thorn.pobox.com (thorn.pobox.com [208.210.124.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E994943D46 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:49:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from b.candler@pobox.com) Received: from thorn (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thorn.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0C3A0; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:44:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mappit.local.linnet.org (212-74-113-67.static.dsl.as9105.com [212.74.113.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by thorn.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4502D790; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:44:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by mappit.local.linnet.org with local (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1EaBrT-000HTG-9i; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:49:03 +0000 Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:49:03 +0000 From: Brian Candler To: Jon Otterholm Message-ID: <20051110124903.GB67086@uk.tiscali.com> References: <1131541588.996.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1131541588.996.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: arp-proxy X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:49:12 -0000 On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:06:28PM +0100, Jon Otterholm wrote: > I want to create a bridge-interface (if_bridge) with a bunch (500+) of > sub-interfaces (vlan) as members. All members of the bridge should be > able to "talk" to each other but MAC-addresses must be isolated to their > "own" vlan. That doesn't really make any sense to me, can you give a concrete example of how it should behave? And/or a higher-level description of what it is you're actually trying to achieve? Note that if the VLANs are *bridged* together then: (1) they form a single broadcast domain. A broadcast packet on any one VLAN will be forwarded to all other VLANs (2) a unicast packet to MAC address XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX will be forwarded only to the VLAN which has that node, as long as the forwarding table knows where it is (if not, it will be forwarded to all VLANs) So bridging VLANs really just collapses them back into a single LAN, which means you shouldn't have set up any VLANs in the first place :-(