On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:59:35AM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> > + if (dst[0] == 0x01 && dst[1] == 0x00 && dst[2] == 0x0c) {
> > + /* Cisco OUI. */
> > + if ((dst[3] & 0xfe) == 0xcc &&
> > + (dst[4] & 0xfe) == 0xcc &&
> > + (dst[5] & 0xfe) == 0xcc) {
> > + /* Drop the following protocols plus others following the
> > same
> > + pattern:
> > +
> > + CDP, VTP, DTP, PAgP (01-00-0c-cc-cc-cc)
> > + Spanning Tree PVSTP+ (01-00-0c-cc-cc-cd)
> > + STP Uplink Fast (01-00-0c-cd-cd-cd) */
> > + return false;
> > + }
>
> Do we know that the other cc/cd combinations are safe to not
> forward? I'm guessing yes, but we may want to confirm with a Cisco
> expat.
I was using the pattern as a clue, reasoning that it's safe to *not*
mirror anything. You can't screw up a switch that way, as far as I
know. The worst you get is a bug report that "Open vSwitch isn't
mirroring my Cisco Magic FUBAR packets, why not?" Right?
> > + <dt><code>01:00:c2:00:00:00</code></dt>
> > + <dd>IEEE 802.1D Spanning Tree Protocol (STP).</dd>
> > +
> > + <dt><code>01:00:c2:00:00:01</code></dt>
> > + <dd>IEEE Pause frame.</dd>
> > +
> > + <dt><code>01:00:c2:00:00:0<var>x</var></code></dt>
> > + <dd>Other reserved protocols.</dd>
>
> I believe the second octet on these previous three addresses is
> supposed to be 80.
You're right, oops. Fixed. I did get it right in the code.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
