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:[email protected]] >> Sent: Montag, 28. Jänner 2013 07:27 >> To: Dietmar Maurer >> Cc: [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]>: >> >>>> 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? >>> > > _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list [email protected] http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
