Re: pair(4) (was: connect routing domains on layer 2)

2015-10-26 Thread gwes
On 10/24/15 06:46, Reyk Floeter wrote: vether doesn't help as it is not transmitting any traffic. in other words, "vether is a bridge endpoint" "pair is a bridge link" This may be a dead topic, but doesn't bridge_output() transmit for vether(4)? Or am I missing the point entirely? pair(4)

Re: pair(4) (was: connect routing domains on layer 2)

2015-10-26 Thread Theo de Raadt
> On 10/24/15 06:46, Reyk Floeter wrote: > > vether doesn't help as it is not transmitting any traffic. > > in other words, "vether is a bridge endpoint" "pair is a bridge link" > This may be a dead topic, but doesn't bridge_output() transmit for > vether(4)? > Or am I missing the point entirely?

Re: pair(4) (was: connect routing domains on layer 2)

2015-10-24 Thread Ted Unangst
Reyk Floeter wrote: > Hi, > > as requested by Theo and discussed with many, the following diff moves > it into a new driver. This also allowed to improve the logic of link > states related to the connection (as discussed with Claudio). > > The new driver is called pair(4). > > # ifconfig

Re: pair(4) (was: connect routing domains on layer 2)

2015-10-24 Thread Reyk Floeter
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 06:12:44AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > Reyk Floeter wrote: > > Hi, > > > > as requested by Theo and discussed with many, the following diff moves > > it into a new driver. This also allowed to improve the logic of link > > states related to the connection (as discussed

pair(4) (was: connect routing domains on layer 2)

2015-10-23 Thread Reyk Floeter
Hi, as requested by Theo and discussed with many, the following diff moves it into a new driver. This also allowed to improve the logic of link states related to the connection (as discussed with Claudio). The new driver is called pair(4). # ifconfig pair1 rdomain 1 10.1.1.1/24 up