> >Andrew, I agree with your analysis also. We have hit this problem too > >(and we have an internal bug tracking it). > >We have not acted on this so far because of the fear of breaking > >existing deployments. I am all for fixing this if there is a > >clean way. > > +1 and since this would be a new bridge boolean option I'd like to add one new > 64 bit option with mask for new boolean bridge options so we can avoid > increasing the max rtnl attr id for such options. Please let me know > if you plan to work on the new option or I can cook something.
Hi Nik For the moment i made a hack, which is enough for my own personal use. I'm not too familiar with the bridge code and its netlink interface. I suspect you can implement this properly much quicker than i could. So i would prefer leaving it to you. But we can talk about this during LPC. Andrew