From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 00:30:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4E716A4CE; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF4343D5D; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:30:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20040417073036011009bilde>; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:30:42 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA71971; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:30:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: "Bruce A. Mah" In-Reply-To: <200404170629.i3H6T39s097439@tomcat.kitchenlab.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 07:30:43 -0000 On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > If memory serves me right, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 08:55:49AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:57:58PM +1200, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have ported over the bridging code from NetBSD and am looking for feedb > > ack. > > > > My main question is, 'do people want this in the tree?' > > > > > > > > > > > > The benefits over the current bridge are: > > > > * ability to manage the bridge table > > > > * spanning tree support > > > > * the snazzy brconfig utility > > > > * clonable pseudo-interface (is that a benefit?) > > > > > > > What advantages does it offer compared to the ng_bridge(4) functionality? > > > > > > > I didnt know about that one, I guess the main advantage is that all three > > *BSDs would have the same code and interface. While I imported it from NetBSD > > , > > it originated in OpenBSD. Thats assuming anyone cares about that sort of > > thing. > > 1. ng_bridge(4) doesn't do spanning tree. Neither does bridge(4). WHICH spanning tree? Spanning tree is a generic term.. Are you refering to a particular implimentation of something that uses spanning tree algorythms? > > 2. A problem that I saw was that ng_bridge(4) didn't interact very well > with IPFilter...specifically, I recall that IPFilter rules had no effect > on bridged packets. This was a problem when I was trying to add > filtered bridging to m0n0wall...the maintainer and I eventually switched > to using bridge(4)-style bridging after resolving a few other problems. There is a ipfw type netgraph module floating around somewhere that you can link in with ng_bridge to get a much more flexible arangement should that be needed. Of course it could do with some work.... > > Don't know how important those are in the grand scheme of things, but > those are a couple of real, functional differences. > > Cheers, > > Bruce. > > >