[pve-devel] [PATCH] pve-common: PVE/Network: rework of activate_bridge_vlan

[Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG]

Hi Dietmar,

my patch is exactly doing what was suggested here:
http://forum.proxmox.com/threads/10110-New-network-configuration-with-bridge-vlan-interfaces?p=57017#post57017

Comparision of current one and my one:
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=Uvc1fNCY

Stefan
Am 28.01.2013 07:52, schrieb Dietmar Maurer:
> This is the thread we discussed such change last year:
> 
> http://forum.proxmox.com/threads/10110-New-network-configuration-with-bridge-vlan-interfaces
> 
> From what I see, there were problems when using bonds and vlans.
> 
> The main advantage of the current approach is that vlan tagging can be done by hardware,
> but that is maybe not really a big advantage?
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG [mailto:s.priebe at profihost.ag]
>> Sent: Montag, 28. Jänner 2013 07:27
>> To: Dietmar Maurer
>> Cc: pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com
>> Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] pve-common: PVE/Network: rework of
>> activate_bridge_vlan
>>
>> I don't get your idea. What do you mean? Why should there be unnecessary
>> untag/tag operations?
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>> Am 28.01.2013 um 06:25 schrieb Dietmar Maurer <dietmar at proxmox.com>:
>>
>>>> But setting the vlan on the bridge involve unnecessary tag/untag
>>>> operations which are avoided with the current setup.
>>>>
>>>> Please can you try to set the gvrp flag of the tap device instead
>>>> (after adding it to the bridge). Or is that a bad idea?
>>>
>>> Sigh - I am still wrong. There is simply no vlan tag on the tap devices.
>>> So if you use a private bridge, pve does not set any VLAN tags, and
>>> thus GVRP will not be involved.
>>>
>>> But this behavior looks correct to me?
>>>
> 
>