Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Patrick McHardy wrote: >> Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >>> For the macvlan code do we need to do anything special if we transmit >>> to a mac we would normally receive? Another unicast mac of the same >>> nic for example. >> >> That doesn't happen under normal circumstances. I don't believe >> it would work. > > Assuming you mean you want to send between two mac-vlans on the same physical > nic... > > This can work if your mac-vlans are on different subnets and you are > routing between them (and if you have my send-to-self patch or have > another way to let a system send packets to itself).
Ok. I didn't know if you could trigger this case without without having then endpoints in separate namespaces. I was suspecting the routing code would realize what we were doing realize the route is local and route through lo. > A normal ethernet switch will NOT turn a packet around on the same > interface it was received, so that is why you must have them on different > subnets and have a router in between. Yes. That is essentially the configuration I was wondering about. > For sending directly to yourself, something like the 'veth' driver > is probably more useful. True. And I think it has a place. However the common case with the tunnel devices is to just hook them all up to an ethernet bridge as well as a real ethernet device. The far ends of the ethernet tunnels are dropped into different namespaces. Which gets a very similar effect to the mac vlan code. I'm just wondering if I can not setup an ethernet tunnel device when my primary purpose is to talk to the outside world, but occasionally want a little in the box traffic. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html