Mark Smith wrote:

quoted text
> Hi,

>

> Ben said,

>

>> I wouldn't deny sending with wrong source mac..ethernet interfaces can

>> do this,

>> and mac-vlan should look as much like ethernet is possible.

>>

>

> I agree, however there's further things that mac-vlans aren't

> currently doing as virtual ethernet interfaces that real ones do.

> Unicast ethernet traffic sent out one mac-vlan interface with a

> destination address of another mac-vlan interface on the same host

> isn't delivered. mac-vlan interfaces, even though they're conceptually

> located on the same ethernet segment, are currently isolated from each

> other for unicast traffic.

>

At least for my use, having them all blindly TX is fine.  For thousands

of interfaces, if you did this right and also delivered all broadcast

packets locally

(ie, ARP), you will cause a lot of overhead, and unless you are running

a patched

kernel (or namespaces perhaps), you can't really communicate with

yourself over the

network anyway using IP.

For the behaviour you want, try adding pairs of VETH interfaces and add

one end

of the veth's to the bridge.  Add a physical port to the bridge for

egress.  Since this

can be done, I don't really see any reason to change mac-vlan

significantly...
If the veth/bridge thing doesn't work, then let us know, as I think that

would be

a bug.  I use a similar-to-veth virtual-device pair in this way and it

works fine.
Thanks,

Ben
--

Ben Greear

Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com
--

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in

the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html