Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 09:49:39 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: jail@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 240106] VNET issue with ARP and routing sockets in jails Message-ID: <bug-240106-29815-uIPmzlF5sA@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-240106-29815@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-240106-29815@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D240106 --- Comment #30 from Zhenlei Huang <zlei@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #13) Let bridge(4) ignore all packets with vlan tag might be too aggressive. All tagged packets are ignored. I'd propose to make bridge(4) decide by configuration. That is something similar with hardware switches. Some syntax like this: ``` # ifconfig bridge0 vlan 10,20,100-200 # ifconfig bridge0 addm em0 link-type trunk # ifconfig bridge0 addm em1 link-type hybrid # ifconfig bridge0 addm em2 link-type access # ifconfig bridge0 addm em0 trunk vlan 10,100-110 # ifconfig bridge0 addm em1 hybrid vlan all # ifconfig bridge0 addm em2 access vlan 20 ``` Then bridge(4) determines to accept tagged / untagged packets by checking t= he configuration of port member. For example, as the syntax above, bridge0 is interested in vlan 10,20,100-2= 00, any packets received on em1 without vlan tag 10,20,100-200 will be ignored = and returned for local processing. As for em2, tagged packets are ignored, and untagged packets will be add vl= an tag 20 and processed normally (by bridge0). --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-240106-29815-uIPmzlF5sA>