"Rogier R. Mulhuijzen" wrote:

ok I understand now...
I thought you were saying that the netgraph code was acting differently
to how I belive it should act.


> Exactly if there's just one interface when netgraph bridging is on. Why?
> Why just one interface? Now that my kernel is patched to behave like BRIDGE
> wasn't compiled in when I switch it off I can include the upper's of
> multiple interfaces in a single netgraph bridge.

sure you can.
that isn't a problem.
It would be a 'brouter' bridging non IP protocols and routing IP.

> If you think about it, this should not even be a problem.
> Look at this diagram http://www.bsdchicks.com/bridge-examples.gif (my
> apologies to everyone who can't look at graphical stuff)

ok I understan.. my question is:
Do you know the girl on http://www.bsdchicks.com/
and is she single? :-)

It should be valid.. and I start to see your point.

by adding the checks back in (or compiling without BRIDGE)
you can have both interfaces....

> What is the difference between figures 1 and 2? Except that one uses a
> switch, and the other uses just a FreeBSD box.


> The way packets travel is almost identical. Why wouldn't it be a valid setup?

Another possibility would be to make a change to the netgraph bridge code
so that it only delivers a broadcast packet to ONE local 'upper' hook.

> You say that interfaces included in the ng_bridge should not have their
> upper's included as well, except for one. 

I didn't mean that they COULDN'T but only that they didn't NEED it

> That's all fine for a static
> setup, but I'm dealing with a setup where I have a box that's a router
> between 2 networks, but sometimes needs to be a bridge as well. If I don't
> include the upper for one of the interfaces, outgoing packets on that
> interface will not pass my netgraph bridge, resulting in returning packets
> to be sent to all hooks on the bridge. I could of course hook my upper to a
> hole node, but then I'd have to move it's IP to the other interface. When I
> nuke the bridge I'd have to move it back. Why do that if including the
> upper in the bridge does the trick.
> Right now my FreeBSD box is routing between 3 networks and sometimes even
> bridging between all 3 and it works perfectly.

Using netgraph or the other bridging? I presume Netgraph.

> I don't see any reason why multiple uppers can't be included.

neither do I, In fact I recommented it to someone yesterday.

> But like I said, my patch has nothing to do with netgraph. When
> net.link.ether.bridge == 0 the kernel should behave like a kernel that
> doesn't have BRIDGE compiled in it. That's currently not the case and my
> patch fixes that.

OK  I will commit it.

>          DocWilco

      __--_|\  Julian Elischer
     /       \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
    (   OZ    ) World tour 2000-2001
---> X_.---._/  

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to