On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 22:20:23 -0800 Roopa Prabhu <ro...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Toshiaki Makita > <makita.toshi...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > On 2017/11/16 13:54, Sarah Newman wrote: > >> On 11/15/2017 08:05 PM, Toshiaki Makita wrote: > >>> On 2017/11/16 11:25, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >>>>> Also what do the vendors using bridge for L2 offload to switch think? > >>>> > >>>> The Marvell L2 switches which DSA supports have 8K FDB/MDB entries. So > >>>> maybe 1024 is a bit low? > >>> > >>> How about U32_MAX by default since it is currently not restricted. > >>> (assuming the field will be changed to u32 as per Stephen's feedback). > >>> > >>> Otherwise users may suffer from unexpected behavior change by updating > >>> kernel? > >>> > >> > >> U32_MAX seems like much too high a default to be helpful to a typical > >> user. How many devices are realistically on a single bridge in the wild? > >> Double > >> that seems like a reasonable default. > > > > I'm suggesting the most unrealistic number to essentially disable the > > restriction by default. > > My understanding is that we put a priority on not to break existing > > users even if the new restriction looks reasonable for most people. > > +1 , and yes, 1024 is very low. some of the switches we use support > around 128K FDB entries and we have seen that number increase fairly > quickly in newer generation switches. Default should be no limit to > not break existing users. New features can not break existing users. My recommendation would be that 0 be used as a magic value to indicate no limit and that would be the default. Also the limit should be controllable on a per port of bridge (interface) basis.
