https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=292759
Zhenlei Huang <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|Affects Only Me |Affects Some People Status|New |In Progress Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] --- Comment #16 from Zhenlei Huang <[email protected]> --- (In reply to vova from comment #15) > Not sure what you ment under "a new kind of **promiscuous mode**" Current promiscuous mode reads, the NIC accepts any packets it receives. That is to say, any frames, tagged or not, destined for us or not, or event bad frames ( wrong CRCs, em(4) has a knob for that ) should be passed in. That implies `allmulti` and `-vlanhwfilter`. "a new kind of **promiscuous mode**" or "a new type of **promiscuous mode**", shall be `allunicast` if I name it. It hints the driver whether the unicast frames not destined for us should be accepted or dropped. > I am not sure, dimention is already here as "vlanfilter", > thinking if these two dimentions are intersecting: > -promisc ->> filters out non mine frames (these that as in ether dst not my > address) > parametrized by: my MAC(s) when ON > clearly required to be OFF for bridge functioning, as it forwards packates > vlanhwfilter ->> filters out VLANs I am not interested in > parametrized by: my VLAN(s) > for bridge it is fine to be either ON or OFF as far as VLAN(s) are > propagated > for me sounds more logical not connect one to another. If we have `allunicast` mode, then bridge(4) can benefits it from putting member interface into `allunicast` and `allmulti` mode, while not loosing the capability to let member interfaces do vlan filtering when `vlanhwfilter` is available. I'm sure how many people will be interested with that idea. I can prototype it on if_em(4) when I have spare time. Are you willing to test it ? BTW, I'd like to give your credentials since you have tested the patch to fix setting the promisc mode of if_em(4). Does `[email protected]` looks good to you, or you are willing to use the real name? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
