From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 13 16:12:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD7B1065670 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:12:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nvass9573@gmx.com) Received: from mailout-eu.gmx.com (mailout-eu.gmx.com [213.165.64.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 78FFD8FC1B for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:12:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2011 16:12:00 -0000 Received: from adsl-80.91.140.41.tellas.gr (EHLO [192.168.73.193]) [91.140.41.80] by mail.gmx.com (mp-eu002) with SMTP; 13 Jan 2011 17:12:00 +0100 X-Authenticated: #46156728 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18TqzoAb5QTkwzsFMw2Ewa91udVUzbGK82JZItGlH eQhIcIOk2Itr36 Message-ID: <4D2F23FF.9020906@gmx.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:10:39 +0200 From: Nikos Vassiliadis User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marko Zec References: <4D2EF336.5010905@gmx.com> <201101131649.50628.zec@fer.hr> In-Reply-To: <201101131649.50628.zec@fer.hr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: if_bridge VIMAGE patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:12:03 -0000 On 1/13/2011 5:49 PM, Marko Zec wrote: > On Thursday 13 January 2011 13:42:30 Nikos Vassiliadis wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Please, review the attached patch. It is against yesterday's HEAD >> and it virtualizes if_bridge. >> >> You can use the bridgetest script to create quickly a topology >> with redundant links to test STP. > > Looks good to me, though I'm wondering is there any particular reason why you > prefer to create bridge instances in the "root" vnet first, and then move > them to other vnets, instead of creating bridge instances directly in target > vnets? > > In other words: > > ifconfig bridge1 create > ifconfig bridge1 vnet x > > vs > > jexec x ifconfig bridge1 create Yes, there is no real reason. The script is just an aid to quickly create the testing topology. It is also known to break in many situations. > In a near future, each vnet will have its own list of cloning ifnets > (currently only lo and vlan cloners are per-vnet, while other cloning ifnet > types use global cloners), so maybe it might be a good practice to attempt to > avoid having ifnet with its cloner attached in one vnet while being loaned to > another (though in some cases this is unavoidable, such as with epair > ifnets). I see. Thanks, Nikos