Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bridging eth0 to eth1 should not pay attention to VLAN tags > at all (if the pkt comes in on VLAN 7, it should go out on VLAN 7), > in my opinion. If the NIC is stripping the VLAN header, then this > cannot work unless something re-builds the VLAN header. If the stripped > VLAN header is placed into the skb, then any code that does need to > rebuild it can do so. It may be less efficient, but users can just > not use that NIC hardware for high-end solutions, and at any rate, > less efficient is better than broken.
That is all true. The problem arises when you receive a tagged frame on eth0, the chip removes the tag, and then the bridge sends it out untagged on eth1. I think there are two valid models for VLAN + bridging: a) bridging works on "physical" interfaces, all tags are transmitted unchanged. b) every VLAN is a different logical interface, packets from unknown VLANs are dropped on RX (and thus don't show up anywhere, except counters), bridging uses logical interfaces. VLAN 100 on eth0 may become VLAN 200 on eth1 and may be untagged on eth2. "a" requires "soft" VLANs and/or adding the tags back (with accelerated VLANs). This is how unmanaged switches labeled "802.1Q - transparent" work. Not very flexible but usually good enough. "b" is how switches supporting VLANs (and 802.1Q) usually work. I know ability to see exactly all packets as they are received (including tags) is a really nice thing. But maybe we should change the model? Making the ethX only carry untagged frames (even without hw VLAN acceleration)? -- Krzysztof Halasa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
