On 31 January 2018 at 16:21, Martin Pieuchot <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for all the feedbacks I received. Diff below addresses multiple
> points after discussion with dlg@ and martijn@:
>
> - Stop using the word 'group' which confuse people. Instead talk of
> 'protected domain'. Interfaces that are part of such domain cannot
> send traffic to each others.
>
> - Allows interface to be part of multiple protected domains. I'm
> using bits for that, meaning that we have a maximum of 31 domains.
>
> In the example below we have to protected domains { em0, em2 } and
> { em1 , em2 }.
>
> bridge0: flags=41<UP,RUNNING>
> index 9 llprio 3
> groups: bridge
> priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwddelay 15 maxage 20 holdcnt 6 proto rstp
> designated: id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 0
> em0 flags=3<LEARNING,DISCOVER>
> port 6 ifpriority 0 ifcost 0 protected 11
> em1 flags=3<LEARNING,DISCOVER>
> port 7 ifpriority 0 ifcost 0 protected 2,11
> em2 flags=3<LEARNING,DISCOVER>
> port 8 ifpriority 0 ifcost 0 protected 2
>
>
> Comments, oks?
I agree with the comments about Group terminology being confusing ...
> - Allows interface to be part of multiple protected domains. I'm
> using bits for that, meaning that we have a maximum of 31 domains.
That is smart ... so you can have more granularity on what interfaces
can communicate
or not communicate with each other... It would be a superior
implementation to what I have
seen in other Systems / Switches in the Wild ...
Thanks Martin , martin@ , dlg@ and Remi
