* Ben Pfaff (b...@nicira.com) wrote: > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:03:23PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > diff --git a/utilities/ovs-vsctl.8.in b/utilities/ovs-vsctl.8.in > > > index 0d858a1..57f76d5 100644 > > > --- a/utilities/ovs-vsctl.8.in > > > +++ b/utilities/ovs-vsctl.8.in > > > @@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ When such a ``fake bridge'' is active, \fBovs\-vsctl\fR > > > will treat it > > > much like a bridge separate from its ``parent bridge,'' but the actual > > > implementation in Open vSwitch uses only a single bridge, with ports on > > > the fake bridge assigned the implicit VLAN of the fake bridge of which > > > -they are members. > > > +they are members. (A fake bridge for VLAN 0 receives packets that > > > +have no 802.1Q tag or a tag with VLAN 0.) > > > > How do we handle this situation? The meaning of vlan 0 can be > > ambiguous - some drivers consider it to mean the same thing as > > untagged and some consider it to be a vlan just like any other. Do we > > actually do anything to deal with this? > > Not certain what you're asking. This paragraph describes OVS > behavior, which should be driver-independent modulo VLAN bugs (that we > have several ways to work around). A "fake bridge" is just > implemented as OVS ports with tag=0.
Will it isolate traffic? I don't believe that would be accurate. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
